Trouble is, regardless of lack of knowledge, skill or suitability for a political “ leadership” position, if anointed by the Democratic Party for president or VP, left followers will mindlessly fall in place and support her anyway.

The left has supporters so brainwashed !

I am sure if this comes to pass ( and I would be good money it does) they will play the “ humble beginnings “ “woman of color” cards to further bolster support. The old ploy of all women should support her, and if you don’t you are a traitor to your gender ( even if the left can’t define that) or all Latina must provide unwavering support to “ one of their own”

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
The old ploy of all women should support her, and if you don’t you are a traitor to your gender ( even if the left can’t define that) or all Latina must provide unwavering support to “ one of their own”

That is a shockingly effective tactic. I've seen otherwise high IQ people say they support a candidate even though they disagree with their political positions simply because they are "one of their own", which isn't white male heterosexual. That's in addition to all of the mindless parroting of DEI pablum about diversity being superior just by definition.

My judgement of human intelligence is growing ever more negative.

“Humble beginnings?” Sandy Cortez?

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
Trouble is, regardless of lack of knowledge, skill or suitability for a political “ leadership” position, if anointed by the Democratic Party for president or VP, left followers will mindlessly fall in place and support her anyway.

That was obvious the last time, but I’m not sure it would be “trouble” for her to get enough support to be nominated. There is a tendency to forget that many people make voting choices based on who they believe is least bad, and in fact I suspect that’s more common than not. Many members here evidently believe that President Trump can do no wrong, but that’s hardly true of everyone. DJT turned out much better than I expected, but we should remember how he was described in the title of a thread that was opened on 30 June 2015.

Another bit of history: Alexander Kerensky was the president of the short-lived Russian Republic after the fall of the Tsar. Sometime after Kerensky was deposed by the 1917 Russian revolution, he observed, “Without Rasputin, there could have been no Lenin.” I.e., Rasputin’s horrible influence over the Tsar’s family, especially his wife, led to so much discontent with the royal institution that it became possible for Lenin and the Bolsheviks (Communists) to come to power, and despite how unpopular they were with many people. I.e., regardless of how bad the Bolsheviks might have been perceived to be, a system that allowed someone like Rasputin to have so much influence over the government was worse.

I remembered that quotation after the 2016 election, and during a discussion with a leftist friend I said, “Without [Hillary] Clinton, there would have been no Trump.” I believed then that if the Democrats had nominated someone less unsuited for the presidency that he/she would have won—and I believe it today. As a much earlier example, I also believe it helped Nixon’s reelection in 1972 when the Democrats nominated George McGovern. I recall a photograph in a humor magazine of Nixon and members of his staff and cabinet who were laughing uproariously with the (yes, fake) caption, “They nominated who‽”

I know many people who were not very happy about the idea of a second Trump term, but were appalled by the Harris nomination. I strongly doubt that AOC will be the nominee in 2024, but if she were, it would only make a GOP victory more likely.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Everything I’ve seen projects Cortez as well behind both heels-up-Harris and Newsom. None of the three are electable without cheating, which we have almost 3 full years to put measures in place that will catch the vermin if they try again.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Everything I’ve seen projects Cortez as well behind both heels-up-Harris and Newsom. None of the three are electable without cheating, which we have almost 3 full years to put measures in place that will catch the vermin if they try again.

With all the cheating, lying and stealing, I’m not so positive. I believe in my heart that we will prevail but it won’t be a cakewalk.
Judges will bend over backwards to stifle rightfully brought lawsuits saying, “You don’t have standing.”
The Supremes sure as hell aren’t any help. We need to get REAL election reform in place sooner rather than later.
That will depend on the spineless republicunts in congress and we’ve all seen how effective they are.

The only way Americans can save their elections is to come out in NUMBERS! HUGE NUMBERS!
We outnumber the dolts and can help drive the idiots back to the sewers where they belong.

ouch

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/2024507915030159435

The ouchiest...

https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/st.../2024640234571407471

"She knows NOTHING. NOTHING. She doesn't know ANYTHING. She was a barista that was kind of cute and glib — and she got elected in a surprise win where nobody really took her seriously."

"And then she went into the Latina DEI and 'The Squad' — and she never did any homework."

"She didn't know anything about Taiwan ... she thought she was going to have a presence — and it kind of boomeranged."

quote:

"She knows NOTHING. NOTHING.

"All she wants is Wingstop
She worked ten hours. Ten hours!
All she wants is Wingstop. Wingstop!
Freakin drive... Freakin drive!
She's freakin starving MAGA!
What did you eat today?
She ate nothing. Nothing... Nothing!
Ten hours down, feeling drained and low. Low!
All she wants is Wingstop!"

Right next to Uranus

Y'know, she's got a point.

https://x.com/xbradtc/status/2065840544467780083

AOC’s Craaazy Economic Theory Lives On

Government can print money, so spending has no consequences. How’d that go during the pandemic?

By Allysia Finley

Remember modern monetary theory? This was the craaaazy economic view that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez helped popularize during Woke 1. It held that the U.S. needn’t worry about deficits because the government could print money. Politicians could spend with abandon, and if inflation rose, Congress could subdue it by raising taxes.

Stephanie Kelton, an economist who provided the intellectual imprimatur for modern monetary theory, thanked Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for bringing this radical idea into the mainstream: “People immediately probably started googling ‘modern monetary theory’ to find out what she was referring to.”

“The national debt is nothing to fear,” Ms. Kelton told CNN in 2019. “What should scare Americans is allowing misunderstandings and fear-mongering about the national debt to prevent us from taking bold action to deal with the urgent threat of climate change.”

This theory was central to the left’s pitch for financing the Green New Deal, Medicare for All and other costly ambitions. Modern monetary theory must be “a larger part of our conversation,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. And so it was during the pandemic, until runaway inflation came and the Federal Reserve had to raise interest rates.

Now the liberal intelligentsia and press, who egged on the experiment in modern monetary theory, are raising alarms about the growing debt and increasing yields on long-term Treasury bonds. Yet listen close, and you’ll notice MMT still undergirds Democrats’ economic agenda, even if they have retired the term.

Step 1. Spend without restraint. 2. Lean on the Fed to monetize the debt. 3. Hike taxes. 4. When economic inequality increases and growth slows, spend more. This more or less tracks what the government did during the pandemic, and now the left wants to repeat the failed experiment on an even larger scale. Call it Woke 2 economics.

Lest anyone forget how the U.S. got persistent inflation and a $40 trillion debt: First, Congress undertook a multitrillion-dollar spending binge during the pandemic that showered people with money. The Fed accommodated the spending by keeping interest rates near zero and purchasing Treasurys.

The latter had the effect of pushing down yields on long-dated bonds and U.S. borrowing costs while driving up asset prices, including for housing. Result: Investors piled into riskier assets—crypto, special-purpose acquisition companies, meme stocks—while Congress, businesses and consumers piled on debt. Borrowing was cheap, so why not?

Many Americans refinanced homes at ultralow rates, which increased household liquidity and fueled consumption. After inflation surged, the Fed raised interest rates and began to shrink its balance sheet. Borrowing costs rose across the board, and suddenly running big deficits became much less affordable. Higher mortgage rates—which are tied to yields on long-term Treasurys—also made homes less affordable for people who hadn’t locked in low rates.

In 2022 Democrats passed an enormous climate and healthcare bill—hilariously named the Inflation Reduction Act—with tax increases that they claimed would pay for sweetened ObamaCare and Medicare prescription-drug benefits and reduce the deficit. All of this spending cost multiples more than Democrats claimed.

The Congressional Budget Office recently revised upward the Medicare prescription-drug costs by some $700 billion over the next decade, largely because of higher-than-expected costs for the act’s enhanced benefits. Government makes something less expensive, and people use more of it. Who would have thought?

This week arrived a faux panic in the press about the upward march of U.S. debt and long-term Treasury rates. Yes, yes. The result will be higher government borrowing costs, but this serves as a useful price signal to America’s spendthrift political class.

One reason for rising long-term rates may be that Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh has signaled that he doesn’t plan to enable Washington’s out-of-control spending by monetizing the U.S. debt, as his predecessors did. He wants no part of MMT.

Enter the left’s household remedy: Hike taxes. Sen. Bernie Sanders and his socialist acolytes have promoted a 5% annual wealth tax on billionaires. This would generate only $2.3 trillion over a decade—about as much as this year’s deficits. Even if the government were to confiscate all the wealth of America’s billionaires, that would only raise $8.4 trillion. This wealth seizure would bring U.S. gross debt back to where it was in spring 2023.

Forget paying for Mr. Sanders’s Medicare for All proposal (estimated cost: $34 trillion over 10 years). How about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to raise the top marginal rate to 70% on incomes over $10 million? That would raise only about $300 billion over 10 years.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is tiptoeing back from some of her earlier radical social positions, like defunding the police. But she and other progressives continue to promote the woke economic idea that raiding the rich can pay for their wildest spending dreams. What will it take for them to wake up?

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/ao...n-4b866588?st=dmYJYD