If not her, then who. How long should a person wait until they challenge the powers that be? The powers that aren't making things better, but making them worse.
Just interesting. To see if there is a challenge. Does not matter to me....I will never vote for her.
This post was edited by my2cents at February 28, 2019 1:24 PM MST
1) You would be better served asking them. No one here is qualified to speak intelligently about the feelings of other people they don’t know, haven’t met and have no access to.
2)The lady’s name is OCASIO-Cortez.
3) While we are on this topic: FINALLY. While I can’t agree with everything AOC says or does, it is a revelation to see someone in Congress step up with some balls. That young Latino lady has more backbone than any of the flaccid Republican empty suits who stand by and let the orange clown run roughshod over them and their party.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 25, 2019 7:12 PM MST
The most disturbing aspect is that so many (of both houses) just kneel down for their party, instead of standing up for the constituents who elected them.
It is establishment politicians on both sides. People are tired of the things being used over and over as election issue and then nothing being done for decades. This is why Bernie and Trump are popular. And why 1/3 of Bernie primary voters are believed to have voted for President Trump.
This post was edited by my2cents at February 27, 2019 5:55 PM MST
It was the “not Hillary” Democrats, left with only Trump as a serious candidate (not that the libertarians and such weren’t serious, but they weren’t gonna get elected) to cast a vote for. Though Hillary still won the popular vote by a margin equal to the population of Arkansas.
Unfortunate in the extreme that American voters were left with having two bad candidates foisted on them by the major parties.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 27, 2019 3:22 PM MST
In your response to Don Barzini, you say that you "agree most in Congress have no guts at all."
Whom are you agreeing with?---that is not what Don Barzini said at all.
Don Barzini needs no help from me on anything, but I since rather large portion of what he says provides both useful insight and accuracy, I prefer that what he says be not co-opted by others in a non congruent association.
You may want to reread Don's #3. That is exactly what he said. ".....it is a revelation to see someone in Congress step up with some balls. That young Latino lady has more backbone than any of the...."
I think you are the one who needs to re-read #3 again---and perhaps also concentrate on its content.
(Don Barzini said)....More backbone than any of theflaccidRepublican empty suits who stand by and let the orange clown run roughshod over them and their party.
He did not say that "most in congress have no guts at all."
So how can you agree with what he never said?
This post was edited by tom jackson at February 26, 2019 6:22 PM MST
I always find it interesting how different people interpret the same material -a phenomenon you and I have discussed at length on other topics. You are on point here, Tom, a trait all-too-common to your posts.
It was, of course, my point to contrast Ms Ocasio-Cortez with her comparatively timid (I dare say conformist) Republican counterparts. Sarah Sanders then replied in the guise of M2C.
That said, I can’t disagree with M2C’s collateral point of gutlessness in Congress, but we both recognize the misdirection at play.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 26, 2019 9:15 PM MST
You and I both answer and / or comment with great precision of thought---on purpose, not by accident.
It is philosophically abhorrent to me that so many people read not for comprehension, but with filters that screen out what they should actually pay attention to.
I've seen too much of that lately on here---and yet we are required (by what are arbitrary terms of service) to respect errors and inaccuracies posted.
I agreed with the part I quoted. Yes, I added that most in Congress are that way....no guts (my words) mean the same as no balls (Don's words).
This post was edited by my2cents at February 27, 2019 6:43 AM MST
No, I don't. I understand that different words can and do mean the same thing. So do I do not get it. I also know that a person can partially agree with what another has said and then choose to highlight the agreement rather than the partition differences. But I get some of us don't get that either.
"No one here is qualified to speak intelligently about the feelings of other people they don’t know, haven’t met and have no access to."
Does that viewpoint include those on here who daily speak out against the President and his supporters, or is it online restricted to those who have perspectives with which you disagree? ___
This post was edited by Randy D at February 27, 2019 6:50 PM MST
Generally speaking, behavior is overdetermined. And that does mean that it is difficult to determine the precise motivations of those we deal with casually on an infrequent basis.
(Although it should be noted also that our children, family members, and close friends are usually far less mysterious to us.)
In the case of public figures, there is frequently a large accumulation of actions and facts in the public realm that make it relatively easy to correctly and intelligently evaluate and infer motivation and feelings---especially when that public figure constantly lies and misleads in public (e.g., Trump).
And to his supporters---well, Trump's support is rather limited among college graduates, possibly because education frequently produces the ability to evaluate whether the reasons advanced for supporting someone like a Trump make sense.
Recently, ex Fed chair Janet Yellen suggested that Trump does not understand economics---a number of his supporters seem not to either, based on their comments on Q & A sites.
This post was edited by tom jackson at February 27, 2019 5:52 PM MST
Zack 