Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

If AOC is your enemy, then you are really, really on the wrong side of history.

[RomaVicta 29742]

11 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think she's a true believer. I've grown to really respect and appreciate her style. She's a brilliant politician really-- fantastic instincts for the game-- a worthy enemy, as they say.

On what battlefields do you oppose her? Please be specific. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

On what battlefields do you oppose her? Please be specific. 

Look, I don't want to get get into a spat with you for no reason, but I also want to be forthcoming and answer a direct question, directly.

Specifically: I oppose healthcare (Universal), Immigration (illegal aliens getting unemployment benefits, etc.), free tuition for college and canceling student debt entirely, her vision of gun control, and her general tone and posture of "othering" of succesful/wealthy people and her entitlement to their money in paying for a bunch of her aspirations. Read the last two pages from a while ago and you can catch up on what I mean by that. 

I've long stated I can appreciate her as a politician and respect her-- and not in the creepy DDD Dad way of sexualizing young women, but in her skills and abilities. She's got an amazing feel or instinct for communication; especially online where she really speaks the younger generations language with her sassy clapbacks and drags and twitter meme language. She's genuinely funny, in these ways, and I suspect she's just a funny person if you know her. Further, I can appreciate her tone of aggression and belligerence as both an honest attribute in her case, but also politically advantageous for the mantle she carries and those she carries it for. Good for her, even if I don't agree.  Edit to add, now that I type all this, she reminds me of what I imagine @bad_teammate would be like as a congressman.

That said, I like some components of her green new deal, but not all, and I agree with defunding police insomuch as that means enabling the LEO's with mental health specialists and the like, but not cutting back on crime. I also don't know where she stands on this but I assume she's for decriminalization of drugs and pot specifically, if not outright legalization, which I agree with.

I'm ambivalent about where she stands on BLM, CRT, or other SJW issues because I could not care less, either way, about such cultural morass. Do you, let your freak flag fly, etc.

Edited September 8, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[bad_teammate 13125]

On 9/4/2021 at 5:06 AM, StassneyHorn said:

AOC went to summer camps in Maxwell, TX for the National Hispanic Institute while in high school. Her story can’t be told without Texas being a formative part of it.

my man out here writing AOC's presidential campaign stump speeches in TX for free

Respect

[hobbes2702 12771]

How anyone opposes universal healthcare at this point is beyond me. There is literally no argument that our current healthcare system is better than the alternative. None.

[StassneyHorn 6534]

You’ll be seeing a lot of Progressives in the Valley come primary season, so be prepared for the story to be repeated

[YChang 3430]

Just want to say I appreciate when Donkey actually shares his perspective without the snark or getting personal. I mean we’re all guilty of too much snark sometimes so it’s kinda refreshing. 

[YChang 3430]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

You’ll be seeing a lot of Progressives in the Valley come primary season, so be prepared for the story to be repeated

It’ll be an interesting thing to see. Like the Bernie and AOC backed candidate from the valley lost last time right? Let see if they can get more interested in voting overall…

[Willfully Horn 7913]

8 minutes ago, YChang said:

Just want to say I appreciate when Donkey actually shares his perspective without the snark or getting personal. I mean we’re all guilty of too much snark sometimes so it’s kinda refreshing. 

Donkey is an intelligent troll. But he’s a troll. Remember we are living the second best outcome from last election. Presumably the best was throwing the constitutional Republic, and it’s pesky rule of law, out the window. Still, as he said, they’ve got another shot at it in 3.4 years.

[RomaVicta 29742]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Look, I don't want to get get into a spat with you for no reason, but I also want to be forthcoming and answer a direct question, directly.

Specifically: I oppose healthcare (Universal), Immigration (illegal aliens getting unemployment benefits, etc.), free tuition for college and canceling student debt entirely, her vision of gun control, and her general tone and posture of "othering" of succesful/wealthy people and her entitlement to their money in paying for a bunch of her aspirations. Read the last two pages from a while ago and you can catch up on what I mean by that. 

I've long stated I can appreciate her as a politician and respect her-- and not in the creepy DDD Dad way of sexualizing young women, but in her skills and abilities. She's got an amazing feel or instinct for communication; especially online where she really speaks the younger generations language with her sassy clapbacks and drags and twitter meme language. She's genuinely funny, in these ways, and I suspect she's just a funny person if you know her. Further, I can appreciate her tone of aggression and belligerence as both an honest attribute in her case, but also politically advantageous for the mantle she carries and those she carries it for. Good for her, even if I don't agree.  Edit to add, now that I type all this, she reminds me of what I imagine @bad_teammate would be like as a congressman.

That said, I like some components of her green new deal, but not all, and I agree with defunding police insomuch as that means enabling the LEO's with mental health specialists and the like, but not cutting back on crime. I also don't know where she stands on this but I assume she's for decriminalization of drugs and pot specifically, if not outright legalization, which I agree with.

I'm ambivalent about where she stands on BLM, CRT, or other SJW issues because I could not care less, either way, about such cultural morass. Do you, let your freak flag fly, etc.

I wasn't looking for a fight, DC. The question was honest, and I appreciate your answer. I disagree with almost, if not all of your opening paragraph, but I'm glad to see it laid out.

Thanks for responding to my question.

[bad_teammate 13125]

18 minutes ago, YChang said:

Just want to say I appreciate when Donkey actually shares his perspective without the snark or getting personal. I mean we’re all guilty of too much snark sometimes so it’s kinda refreshing. 

there are many paths into the garden of trolling, and many paths beyond the garden.  Donkey is on a path few have travelled and I'm here for it. some through-the-looking-glass meta-trolling stuff. Students of the game gotta respect new looks and styles.

Shout out to all the players out here on the field. 

Good game, gentlemen

[DonkeyCigars 144]

It's an odd feeling for me when my honest and earnest political beliefs are so out of touch and out of line with the community I post in, that they are deemed to be fake or affected or worse yet, an elaborate troll for hypothetical lulz (is that still a thing?).

With all due respect, it should be an even odder feeling for you people when you take a step back and recognize that there are a goodly number of people, comprising of a sizable population of America, who believe in generally the same rough sketch as I do, because that means your belief in me as a troll implies the existence that 30-40% of Americans are trolls. Which is asinine. Is that really our position here?

I assumed this didn't have to be asked, but I'll ask it now: you people understand that "trolling" and "not agreeing with your politics and standing for something different" are not the same things, right? 

 

[hpslugga 4037]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

How anyone opposes universal healthcare at this point is beyond me. There is literally no argument that our current healthcare system is better than the alternative. None.

Every logical fallacy that can be used against national healthcare has been used

Every argument against national healthcare is logically fallacious.

That’s just one of those arguments where we need to hit the mute button when hearing/reading the kind of insipid drivel as we were treated to. To even entertain it is to lose one’s humanity, much in the same way that one loses one’s humanity when engaging people who propose the flat earth model in lieu of the oblate spheroid on which we live…or that the stork model is a better explanation of child birth than pregnancy. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

there are many paths into the garden of trolling, and many paths beyond the garden.  Donkey is on a path few have travelled and I'm here for it. some through-the-looking-glass meta-trolling stuff. Students of the game gotta respect new looks and styles.

Shout out to all the players out here on the field. 

Good game, gentlemen

And look, I'm a complex human being with sometimes conflicting opinions and feelings. To wit: I kinda think AoC is rad and I love Bad_teammate as a poster, even though he's like the opposite of what I'd want in a leader. Or maybe not. I could get behind a bad_teammate revolution with the appropriate promised spoils-- he's got a strong personality.

[Willfully Horn 7913]

 

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Or maybe not. I could get behind a bad_teammate revolution with the appropriate promised spoils

There it is. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Wtf

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

16 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It's an odd feeling for me when my honest and earnest political beliefs are so out of touch and out of line with the community I post in, that they are deemed to be fake or affected or worse yet, an elaborate troll for hypothetical lulz (is that still a thing?).

With all due respect, it should be an even odder feeling for you people when you take a step back and recognize that there are a goodly number of people, comprising of a sizable population of America, who believe in generally the same rough sketch as I do, because that means your belief in me as a troll implies the existence that 30-40% of Americans are trolls. Which is asinine. Is that really our position here?

I assumed this didn't have to be asked, but I'll ask it now: you people understand that "trolling" and "not agreeing with your politics and standing for something different" are not the same things, right? 

 

It's an odd feeling because regardless of what you think, your views are more in line with 1950's America than 2021 America. My grandparents and for a while my parents held the exact same beliefs as you. My parents are in their 60's. I get the sense you're not nearly that old. If they can see through the bullshit and how they have been lied to over the course of their life, perhaps you can too.

[hobbes2702 12771]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

It's an odd feeling because regardless of what you think, your views are more in line with 1950's America than 2021 America. My grandparents and for a while my parents held the exact same beliefs as you. My parents are in their 60's. I get the sense you're not nearly that old. If they can see through the bullshit and how they have been lied to over the course of their life, perhaps you can too.

Not just that but many of the views are just unsupported by any facts. They are just grievances based on lies presented over and over for several decades in this country by one side of the aisle.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Not just that but many of the views are just unsupported by any facts. They are just grievances based on lies presented over and over for several decades in this country by one side of the aisle.

you said it better. thanks

[bad_teammate 13125]

46 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It's an odd feeling for me when my honest and earnest political beliefs are so out of touch and out of line with the community I post in, that they are deemed to be fake or affected or worse yet, an elaborate troll for hypothetical lulz (is that still a thing?).

 

I don't see it as "fake". I also don't see it as "real". We are all using rhetoric and we all have beliefs and they are all far more fluid than we tell ourselves. Just players in the game, and your method of careful discourse is alien to most here (including me) and I respect it

You shouldn't care what anyone else thinks about your sincerity. You do you, baby

[DonkeyCigars 144]

12 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Not just that but many of the views are just unsupported by any facts. They are just grievances based on lies presented over and over for several decades in this country by one side of the aisle.

Everyone has their own lived experiences in addition to their learned and social attitudes, which combine with a fundamental worldview or belief system, that all intersect and combine to inform a political belief or identity.
 

I don’t discount that “repeated lies from the foxnews squaxbox or Joe Rogan podcast” is a big driver of informing a lot of people’s views which a lot of people feel are illegitimate and based upon lies— but the sword cuts both ways. A lot of progressive, “enlightened”, or otherwise liberal beliefs can also be said to be built upon a framework of lies which can also invite the same range of emotions towards them, the same emotions you or others might feel towards those who disagree with you, from pity to scorn to intolerance, etc.

And that’s America; two different tall skyscraper apartment buildings, the slabs poured by two disparate and distinct fundamental views, whose landlords each want the other building for themselves. I’m just proposing we, as tenants, be polite to our neighbors.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't see it as "fake". I also don't see it as "real". We are all using rhetoric and we all have beliefs and they are all far more fluid than we tell ourselves. Just players in the game, and your method of careful discourse is alien to most here (including me) and I respect it

You shouldn't care what anyone else thinks about your sincerity. You do you, baby

That’s spot on. We are fluid; we are complex. We all “code switch”, in different ways and degrees. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

We are fluid; we are complex

Like gender and sexual orientation; so glad you agree

[Mole 4318]

54 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

that means your belief in me as a troll implies the existence that 30-40% of Americans are trolls. Which is asinine. Is that really our position here?

 

Setting aside the open question as to how earnest your stated beliefs are, surely that 30-40% number is far too low. We’ve largely embraced trolling as a defining ethos.

[Nivek 16796]

It's an odd feeling for me when my honest and earnest political beliefs are so out of touch and out of line with the community I post in, that they are deemed to be fake or affected or worse yet, an elaborate troll for hypothetical lulz (is that still a thing?).
With all due respect, it should be an even odder feeling for you people when you take a step back and recognize that there are a goodly number of people, comprising of a sizable population of America, who believe in generally the same rough sketch as I do, because that means your belief in me as a troll implies the existence that 30-40% of Americans are trolls. Which is asinine. Is that really our position here?
I assumed this didn't have to be asked, but I'll ask it now: you people understand that "trolling" and "not agreeing with your politics and standing for something different" are not the same things, right? 
 

Quite frankly you did start out here with all of the hallmarks of a troll, but you have turned it around.

[hobbes2702 12771]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Everyone has their own lived experiences in addition to their learned and social attitudes, which combine with a fundamental worldview or belief system, that all intersect and combine to inform a political belief or identity.
 

I don’t discount that “repeated lies from the foxnews squaxbox or Joe Rogan podcast” is a big driver of informing a lot of people’s views which a lot of people feel are illegitimate and based upon lies— but the sword cuts both ways. A lot of progressive, “enlightened”, or otherwise liberal beliefs can also be said to be built upon a framework of lies which can also invite the same range of emotions towards them, the same emotions you or others might feel towards those who disagree with you, from pity to scorn to intolerance, etc.

And that’s America; two different tall skyscraper apartment buildings, the slabs poured by two disparate and distinct fundamental views, whose landlords each want the other building for themselves. I’m just proposing we, as tenants, be polite to our neighbors.

When you say things that aren’t tethered to facts and reality your opinions will be met with contrition 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

Just now, Nivek said:

Quite frankly you did start out here with all of the hallmarks of a troll, but you have turned it around.

[Nivek 16796]

I’m a conservative person (and politically) but I’ve got no problem giving credit/blame where it’s warranted. 
 
eta: even if she doesn’t give a solitary fuck about Texas she’s still playing good politics imo.  And that’s the game. She’s good at it.  Or she’s sincere, and that’s even better. 

I tend to judge people by their actions. Ted Cruz played the part to a minimum when he came back from Cancun to load one case of water bottles in front of a camera. While lying multiple times about why he left. He is against mask mandates, claims covid was a hoax, and yet rushed to the front of the line to get vaccinated and his kids go to a mask mandated school.

AOC rushed toward the problem and brought money to a city that cannot even vote for her. Unless you think she is playing a long game which is impressive considering how ADHD our news cycles and attention spans are.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

When you say things that aren’t tethered to facts and reality your opinions will be met with contrition 

Contrition? Either I’m really not following or you are a victim of iPhone autocorrect.

Edited September 8, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Gourmand 7774]

23 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I don’t discount that “repeated lies from the foxnews squaxbox or Joe Rogan podcast” is a big driver of informing a lot of people’s views which a lot of people feel are illegitimate and based upon lies— but the sword cuts both ways. A lot of progressive, “enlightened”, or otherwise liberal beliefs can also be said to be built upon a framework of lies which can also invite the same range of emotions towards them, the same emotions you or others might feel towards those who disagree with you, from pity to scorn to intolerance, etc.

This is just another iteration of bothsideritis bullshit that requires proof .

For the last forty years the right wing has embarked upon a calculated and intentional campaign to attack the media as "liberally-biased"  as a means of neutering all criticisms and thereby creating a world where facts are subjective and objective truths don't exist anymore. All contradictory information can be brushed aside or flatly igored just because the conservative grievance audience doesn't trust our fundamental institutions: media, government, science, academia.....

What is the liberal version of that unreality????

Edited September 8, 2021 by Gourmand

[hobbes2702 12771]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

Contrition?

Not sure how that was what I typed but derision is the word lol.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Like gender and sexual orientation; so glad you agree

To a degree, I do agree with you. Funny riposte, nonetheless. 

[Biff Tannen 45468]

44 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I’m just proposing we, as tenants, be polite to our neighbors.

I am 100% for this.  Problem is, a fuck ton of the people on "your side" told the rest of us to fuck ourselves.

[Bama Chick 28596]

FFS - even those of you who acknowledge the troll are STILL engaging with said troll.

Ignore and scroll by.

He’ll eventually go away after his screams into the void are no longer acknowledged.

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I tend to judge people by their actions. Ted Cruz played the part to a minimum when he came back from Cancun to load one case of water bottles in front of a camera. While lying multiple times about why he left. He is against mask mandates, claims covid was a hoax, and yet rushed to the front of the line to get vaccinated and his kids go to a mask mandated school.

AOC rushed toward the problem and brought money to a city that cannot even vote for her. Unless you think she is playing a long game which is impressive considering how ADHD our news cycles and attention spans are.

This. There's a particular brand of gullibility rooted in cynicism that the right wing seems particularly susceptible to. They frequently lay out these really flimsy blanket assumptions like, "all politicians are corrupt, ambitious narcissists, and to think otherwise is to be naive." Sure, nobody is perfect, but some people clearly possess a personality disposition that drives them towards a life of service, and probability guarantees that some of them will have the talent to actually earn success the hard way. To suggest that type of person doesn't exist is mathematically absurd. And this kind of person is that last type of individual that these right wingers ever want to acknowledge, because they haven't themselves ever faced what psychologists call "the facts of life" -- they are small minded fools who look at everyone who is smarter and/or more attractive than them and reassure themselves, "well, at least I'm a better person than they are." Accepting that AOC is genuine and well-intentioned is beyond their capacity, so they vilify her instinctively.

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

40 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

This is just another iteration of bothsideritis bullshit that requires proof .

For the last forty years the right wing has embarked upon a calculated and intentional campaign to attack the media as "liberally-biased"  as a means of neutering all criticisms and thereby creating a world where facts are subjective and objective truths don't exist anymore. All contradictory information can be brushed aside or flatly igored just because the conservative grievance audience doesn't trust our fundamental institutions: media, government, science, academia.....

What is the liberal version of that unreality????

The last forty years the world, by which I mean American society and culture, has pretty undisputedly moved left. If we look at the etymological roots of the words of progressivism and fundamentalism or conservatism, the question is begged: Fundamentals and origins are opposed to progress and progressivism.

So we have, if not a compelling and instantaneous event, a divergence wherein the river splits in two and slowly over time runs farther and farther apart. That river is objective truth.

To answer your question, the liberal version of unreality, IMO, is the reality in which liberals today celebrate as norming, if not normative.

That's all pretty straightforward but what throws the monkey wrench in the whole works is when you get down to the business of defining (subjective, you called it) what progress is good and what is bad, because that is where the blood gets spilled and the hay gets made.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

23 minutes ago, ndawg said:

This. There's a particular brand of gullibility rooted in cynicism that the right wing seems particularly susceptible to. They frequently lay out these really flimsy blanket assumptions like, "all politicians are corrupt, ambitious narcissists, and to think otherwise is to be naive." Sure, nobody is perfect, but some people clearly possess a personality disposition that drives them towards a life of service, and probability guarantees that some of them will have the talent to actually earn success the hard way. To suggest that type of person doesn't exist is mathematically absurd. And this kind of person is that last type of individual that these right wingers ever want to acknowledge, because they haven't themselves ever faced what psychologists call "the facts of life" -- they are small minded fools who look at everyone who is smarter and/or more attractive than them and reassure themselves, "well, at least I'm a better person than they are." Accepting that AOC is genuine and well-intentioned is beyond their capacity, so they vilify her instinctively.

 

You are 100% right here, which is why I pleasantly admit that AoC is a genuine, bona fide politician of integrity to her own intentions and her constituents. And she's darn good at what she does. That's impressive and it's kinda fun to watch even if in the back of your mind you still know intellectually you shouldn't be. It's like when Adrian Peterson was playing. He was so good and impressive that you had this healthy respect and even like for the guy even if he was a dirty Sooner.

Beyond all that, it doesn't help at all when people speak in absolutes because as you said, probabilities and mathematics have a part to play in any dynamic system.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The last forty years the world, by which I mean American society and culture, has pretty undisputedly moved left. If we look at the etymological roots of the words of progressivism and fundamentalism or conservatism, the question is begged: Fundamentals and origins are opposed to progress and progressivism.

So we have, if not a compelling and instantaneous event, a divergence wherein the river splits in two and slowly over time runs farther and farther apart. That river is objective truth.

To answer your question, the liberal version of unreality, IMO, is the reality in which liberals today celebrate as norming, if not normative.

That's all pretty straightforward but what throws the monkey wrench in the whole works is when you get down to the business of defining (subjective, you called it) what progress is good and what is bad, because that is where the blood gets spilled and the hay gets made.

uh, no. the world moved left, we moved right. that's pretty verifiable. what is considered liberal here is understood by much of the rest of the world to be pretty centrist. and your answer to his question is the textbook definition of a non-answer. you're out of your league on this one

[elfenix 34163]

we're nicer to they gays and more accepting of marijuana while but we've also been systematically gutting environmental protections, labor protections, demonized labor unions, demonized science, demonized the actual mechanics of elections, cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% eleventy billion times, demonized public assistance, weaponized religious protections, and allowed dark money to effectively evade any campaign finance limits. and every word after 'but' in the preceding sentence has been in service of conservatism, but right, we've moved indisputably left. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

uh, no. the world moved left, we moved right. that's pretty verifiable. what is considered liberal here is understood by much of the rest of the world to be pretty centrist. and your answer to his question is the textbook definition of a non-answer. you're out of your league on this one

Sorry I thought I was clear in that first sentence that when I was talking about and using the "world", I didn't mean the world at large, but a more myopic American view as illustrated by American society. I think it's indisputable that American society has "progressed" and moved left with what is acceptable and normalized, which I think you even (or someone else who I confuse with you) admitted by saying my contemporary views come off as anachronistic, as if they were germinated in during the 50's.

[Gourmand 7774]

9 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Sorry I thought I was clear in that first sentence that when I was talking about and using the "world", I didn't mean the world at large, but a more myopic American view as illustrated by American society. I think it's indisputable that American society has "progressed" and moved left with what is acceptable and normalized, which I think you even (or someone else who I confuse with you) admitted by saying my contemporary views come off as anachronistic, as if they were germinated in during the 50's.

I think it's very disputable. 

[hpslugga 4037]

21 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

uh, no. the world moved left, we moved right. that's pretty verifiable. what is considered liberal here is understood by much of the rest of the world to be pretty centrist. and your answer to his question is the textbook definition of a non-answer. you're out of your league on this one

And in some cases, what’s considered “left” is still very much to the right of center. For twenty years, the militant corporatist Hilary Clinton was portrayed in the pig-ignorant right wing Nutosphere as being the second coming of Che Guevara. When so-called “conservatives” in America wine about the left, leftism, liberals, liberalism, et al, what they’re talking about is best described as “anyone to the political left of Atila the Hun.” It’s a joke.

Edited September 8, 2021 by hpslugga

[DonkeyCigars 144]

8 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I think it's very disputable. 

Maybe "indisputable" is hyperbole in hindsight, if you are scorecarding everything on the balance.

But therein lies the problem-- are we accounting for all things in all areas or just the areas we are biased or conditioned to care about? Are we disinterestedly judging these things or are we a victim to any number of psychological and logical fallacies that ensnare us unconsciously because we are emotional, irrational human beings with egos and agendas and ambitions? Like bad_teammate suggested, we are a fluid, complex people who would probably be shocked at how often and to what degrees are brains betray us.

Anyways, I don't know how we got off topic and I apologize for my role in that. Getting back to the point of the thread, AoC is pretty rad. She's a good egg for the left for sure and I enjoy watching her politick.

Edited September 8, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Maybe "indisputable" is hyperbole in hindsight, if you are scorecarding everything on the balance.

But therein lies the problem-- are we accounting for all things in all areas or just the areas we are biased or conditioned to care about? Are we disinterestedly judging these things or are we a victim to any number of psychological and logical fallacies that ensnare us unconsciously because we are emotional, irrational human beings with egos and agendas and ambitions? Like bad_teammate suggested, we are a fluid, complex people who would probably be shocked at how often and to what degrees are brains betray us.

Anyways, I don't know how we got off topic and I apologize for my role in that. Getting back to the point of the thread, AoC is pretty rad. She's a good egg for the left for sure and I enjoy watching her politick.

she's a good egg for the right too, but most are too stupid to realize it. good try, though

[Bullneck 18976]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

FFS - even those of you who acknowledge the troll are STILL engaging with said troll.

Ignore and scroll by.

He’ll eventually go away after his screams into the void are no longer acknowledged.

This.  

[pyrohornIII 4794]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I tend to judge people by their actions. Ted Cruz played the part to a minimum when he came back from Cancun to load one case of water bottles in front of a camera. While lying multiple times about why he left. He is against mask mandates, claims covid was a hoax, and yet rushed to the front of the line to get vaccinated and his kids go to a mask mandated school.

AOC rushed toward the problem and brought money to a city that cannot even vote for her. Unless you think she is playing a long game which is impressive considering how ADHD our news cycles and attention spans are.

Cruz is a politician.  AOC is a states(wo)man.  We need more statesmen.   

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

AOC cares about you. Cruz doesn’t. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Cruz is a politician.  AOC is a states(wo)man.  We need more statesmen.   

honestly I could read this about three different ways and still not convince myself which one you mean

Edited September 9, 2021 by Longhorn_Fan68

[wildcat09 29179]

18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I am 100% for this.  Problem is, a fuck ton of the people on "your side" told the rest of us to fuck ourselves.

Also, they're killing a lot of us. Some of it is intentional, much of it is just reckless, but this isn't just a "two sides disagree" thing. This is a "the actions of this group of people are resulting in mass death" thing, and a ton of people still just pretend that isn't the case.

[Nivek 16796]

18 hours ago, ndawg said:

This. There's a particular brand of gullibility rooted in cynicism that the right wing seems particularly susceptible to. They frequently lay out these really flimsy blanket assumptions like, "all politicians are corrupt, ambitious narcissists, and to think otherwise is to be naive." Sure, nobody is perfect, but some people clearly possess a personality disposition that drives them towards a life of service, and probability guarantees that some of them will have the talent to actually earn success the hard way. To suggest that type of person doesn't exist is mathematically absurd. And this kind of person is that last type of individual that these right wingers ever want to acknowledge, because they haven't themselves ever faced what psychologists call "the facts of life" -- they are small minded fools who look at everyone who is smarter and/or more attractive than them and reassure themselves, "well, at least I'm a better person than they are." Accepting that AOC is genuine and well-intentioned is beyond their capacity, so they vilify her instinctively.

 

Are you basically defining the Genuine Article that Steve Martin used in Leap of Faith?

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33803]