Are the Democrats back on track?

Ah, yes, Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro's propaganda rag.

Analysis / Bias
The Daily Wire - Media Bias/Fact Check
"The Daily Wire presents news with a right wing bias in reporting and wording. For example headlines are usually sensational and utilize strong emotional language such as this: Democrats Boo God. Then They Quote The Bible To Attack Trump.

Virtually every story favors the right and denigrates the left. The Daily Wire has also published some false information such as these and this directly from Ben Shapiro. Further, a factual search reveals that the Daily Wire, on a whole, has a mixed track record with fact checkers."
.
"False stories
According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified."[11] Among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.

FactCheck.Org found that The Daily Wire was the source of a false story which credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. FactCheck.org found that the errors were discovered and published by HUD's independent inspector general before Carson became secretary."

The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading. Not only that, it asserts the whole idea of climate change is a Democrat conspiracy.

The site has blatantly made up or exaggerated stuff about universities, which are high on Shapiro's list of demons. For example, a ceremony organized by African-American students at Harvard was spun into a report that Harvard was segregating its graduation events.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-segregated-graduation/

So maybe Alexandria's encounter with the kids was innocent, and it was Ryan Saavedra who is busy.

 

Maybe not, watch the video and listen to her for yoruself. See the brainwashing these kids have so obviously endured. One even alludes to violence, as if on cue. Does this seem like a healthy reaction from kids so young?

 

It seems like a normal one. Mountains out of molehills. Running scared?

 

You have to walk back the emotional angle to give this a proper vetting. I can't imagine you'd be as glib about pushing Christian morals onto children. Or worse, right wing politics. Politics in the US has devolved into discussions about all of the feelings issues and none of the infrastructure and regulatory issues. The really important stuff is being ignored by democrats, so the republicans are just as free to ignore them, and they do.

 

Think about it, George. How was this video obtained? Is someone following her around, closely monitoring her activity in hopes she will pick her nose, disrespect the flag, etc.? Someone she trusts? If so, I find that at least as disturbing as Alexandria's conduct, especially from a source tied to Ben Shapiro. I notice Fox has picked up the story and hyped it, desperate as Republicans are to come up with something to discredit her. Was the video doctored? For a glimpse of the depths to which conservatives will sink to manufacture stuff against her, consider this fake interview with her--doctored to make it seem like she was ignorant of basic facts. After it went viral on Facebook, filmmaker later admitted it was "satire".
After a fake interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was viewed more than 1.5 million times, its maker tried to say it was satire
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...eo-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-speading-on
ELLE's Senior Video Editor Breaks Down That Doctored Viral Video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
After that, I never take anything said about her, especially from disreputable sources, at face value until I know more about it. Has Alexandria been asked about the film of her encounter with the kids? What, if anything, was her response? Is this more "satire"? What is the context? Does she go around to random groups of kids spouting political ideology? People push religion and right wing politics onto kids all the time. I was schooled by nuns with rulers, and my parents made Sean Hannity look like a pinko (it didn't take). But if Occasio-Cortez's encounter with the kids was more than a one time lapse, I'd be disturbed. If I were of the mentality of Alex Jones of InfoWars or certain of his defenders on these Forums, I'd ask "How do you know it was really her instead of an actress playing her? The voice could have been dubbed. (Or maybe the kids were out of work extras left over from the "fake" Sandy Hook school massacre). But I'm not that paranoid.

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that the video is on the up-and-up, and that it shows a flaw in her character. Most humans have those, especially the ones who enter politics, so we have to think in relative terms. You'd really have to go some to convince me she's as bad as the Donald, Jim Ryan, or most of the other Republican swamp creatures in Washington, although her opponent, a 72-year old economics professor with the charisma of a wet noodle, is my kind of Republican candidate.https://nypost.com/2018/06/28/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-opponent-hasnt-gotten-a-single-donation-yet/ Although he's running for federal office, he devotes a lot of time to railing about the need to restrain state judges in divorce cases--his own encounter with one apparently still stuck in his craw. As a non-Latino in a half Latino district where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 6-1 margin, he faces an uphill battle. As for those "feeling" issues, Fox has honed those into an art form if not a science--the War on Christmas, etc.

Alexandria is a political neophyte; her mettle will soon be tested again in the field of combat. I personally don't think socialism is the wave of the future for the country or the Democrats, but I could be wrong. I wish her well. Fire away, but if this is the best Republicans can come up with, I think they're in trouble.

 

Who says I'm "worried"?

And thanks for the canned perspective, I didn't learn anything new.

 

Thank you for your Daily Wire Foxspeak.

 

This is where I'm supposed to recoil in fear, as if accused of being a dreaded [Insert anything that's not a hard left position]. The Daily Wire, like the Daily Caller is some seriously dull shit. So is Fox, but it's more colorful, and it has music, and breasts. It's weird you'd associate me with this gaggle when there's still InfoWars and Prison Planet. And all because I don't like to see children being dragged into today's blatant mud slinging festival. What hideous evil I have become.






:wagoncircle:

 

I was just going by the content, which seemed to be regurgitating the stories I've read on the Daily Wire and Fox on the kiddie incident. How you say it, "canned perspective".

 

6

But you gave an explanation of what you thought an alt-right viewpoint was and that you agreed with them and from what you have posted your views have not changed – what you seem to be saying is what has changed is that many people now know, what you knew back then that many of the alt-right are overtly racist.

But as I say I’m happy to just call you far right or extreme right which you posts make clear you are.

Thing is that you knew and acknowledged that the alt-right had racists in it but still you wanted to be associated with it

As to the rest I mean LOL your argument seems to be that because you are only of the far right and not of the far far far right it means you are somehow of the ‘moderate right’.

Sorry I can’t stop laughing I mean you must know that in the real world it doesn’t work that way?

 

6

This and the comment you made earlier about the military makes it clear you haven’t read that much on politics. Social policy and fiscal policy have specific meanings within political discussions.

Yes the military is part of society, I mean anything in a society is part of that society, but in political discussion that doesn’t mean that military policy is normally thought of as a social policy.

Now fiscal policy, is about the raising and spending of money, but the amount raised, how and what it is spent on can change according to politics, so for example the money could be spent on the military or social policy objectives.

Your replies make it clear your right even far right thinking.

But many of the people receiving public assistance are working?

By the way did you even look up a definition of ‘welfare state’ before you replied? I mean a lot of the things mentioned below also come under its heading.

But one of the hallmarks of modern welfare states is a government backed old age pension scheme – so under your policy of a ‘diminishing asset’ the older a person gets the less they get until they are cut off which basically seems like a euthanasia scheme for the less well off.

Also many of these schemes are paid into by working people over their life so this policy of yours would be basically robbing people of the money they have paid into through tax.

What about benefits going toward those that are mentally or physically impaired are they also to be withdrawn?

I know the US has limited healthcare for the disadvantaged anyway but are you going to withdraw what there is?

What you seem to be proposing is a Social Darwinist based eugenics programme?

Honestly I don’t think you have given this much thought.

You don’t know and can even be bothered to look it up or do any research?

Again this indicates to me that you haven’t really given these things that much thought.

This is usually about protecting and helping venerable children and adults in a society, for example at risk children, the disabled, and the elderly.

Again this is a very narrow and shallow view of the issues.

I mean come on you honestly what to bring up that vacuous Sothern and here silly victimhood AGAIN?

This is a rant not a considered view of the issue – have you actually given this much thought or done any research on it?

And come on man, we have been through the same crap before and it didn’t stand up then so why repeat it?

Why are you in favour of the voucher system and how is it meant to improve the things you say are at fault with the present system?

I mean I’ve discussed the voucher system before and it basically come across as utopian neo-liberal ideology rather than any real world solution to real problems and quickly unravelled when looked at.

How would that work?

The UK system is based on a direct government insurance scheme and some others have private insurance companies but they are government backed (many I believe are non-profit) and are hemmed in by laws and regulations.

A ‘free market’ system would be one which was basically unregulated and where someone would only get help if they could directly pay for it?

The US system is expensive and has limited availability compared to the NHS, the majority of Americans would be better off with a US version of the NHS than what it has now.

So what do you believe are the arguments for it?

Yes you have explained as a ‘diminishing asset’ but what happens when people do get cut off in a period of low employment?

 

6

Well your views seem far right wing even extreme right wing politically but your grasp of the issues seem rather shallow and un-researched, you are often sprouting the right wing line without seeming to understand the issue that they are meant to address.

I fear you have accepted the ideology first then adapted it to the issues rather than examine the issue and see what real world solutions there might be to make things better.

As such (as highlighted before) you seem to have a very simplistic view of the world and its issues based in large part on the false claims and ideas of Social Darwinism which seem driven by a grievance and victim mentality that believes what you see as the ‘unworthy’ are getting one over on you.

 

Kavanaugh temper tantrums was right on par with the course. due tell me its right wing links. google provided them. Im sure they're equal..
STOP THE HEARING: This Is How Many Times Dems Have Thrown A Tantrum At Today's SCOTUS Hearing
Democrats' Tantrums At Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearings Are An Embarrassment

 

I watched it, did you? The Democrat "tantrums" were over kangaroo court proceedings: things like being denied hundreds of thousands of pages of relevant testimony, being told arbitrarily that tens of thousands more could not be discussed openly in public, being given tens of thousands more at the last minute when it would be impossible for even speed readers to go through them, and being ignored when they tried to make valid motions to discuss these issues before the proceedings began--this under a tight, artificial deadline created by Senators who thought eight months was too little time to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. It's good to see somebody's raising a fuss about this abuse of process.

 

impossible to watch all- 10hours?.. kinda reminded me of the farewell to AF, but I don't invest that much time in it..

 

I didn't do all ten hours. Just the first couple. Even I am not that much of a political junkie. But I did see the part your post was talking about. Most if the "interruptions" came early on, as did Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn's accusation that the Democrats were promoting “mob rule.”

 

We may have a new rising star in the Boston race for the 7th District, Ayanna Pressley. She's young, energetic, African-American and just defeated a 10-term establishment Democrat incumbent in the primary. She's mainstream progressive but non-Socialist , unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom Pressley refers to as her “sister in change.” The future is lookin' better n' better. In one of the most Democratic districts in the country, she's the clear favorite.

 

"It looks like there's a few politicians hanging around children"

Stephen Stills: 49 bye byes: Album: Four Way Street