B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Senator Jack Reed: "This White House statement is a stunning window into President Trump's autocratic tendencies, his limited grasp of world affairs, and his weakness on the world stage."

How many different ways can Mushroom D say F-U to everything this country stands for?

---

Lest you forget how 40% of your fellow citizens view this matter (comments from Daily Mail):

"Love how the left is constantly trying to make us the world police."

"So many dumb people believe what liberal media prints."

"People get killed every day why is he so especial?"

"Who murdered DNC employee Seth Rich on a DC street? Why didn't the DNC offer a reward? Why do they care so much more about this guy than one of their own? "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.amp.html

@AdamSerwer:
Trump not only attempted to order the justice department to prosecute his political rivals; he is still talking about doing so. This is a flagrant attack on democracy and the rule of law that the most partisan Republican should recognize as dangerous.

This is utter BS, especially given Trumpkins got clown stomped in the election. $200m for nothing. W.T.F. happened to traditional conservative fiscal conservativism?

Trump spent $200,000,000 on the election stunt of sending 6,000 troops to the border, then withdrew them before the caravan arrived

This is an official statement from the office of the POTUS:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/?utm_source=twitter

First two lines: "America first! The world is a very dangerous place!"

Currently googling "how not to care what others think of you" so I don't die of embarrassment next time I venture abroad.

How has it gotten this far?

Chief Justice Roberts has limits to how much of Trump's dangerous stupidity he can take without commenting publicly.

Quote:

WASHINGTON Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump's description of a judge who ruled against Trump's new migrant asylum policy as an "Obama judge."

It's the first time that the leader of the federal judiciary has offered even a hint of criticism of Trump, who has previously blasted federal judges who ruled against him.

Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press.

Roberts said on the day before Thanksgiving that an "independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Veteran and congresswoman from Hawaii speaking truth to buffoon:

---

I love how the younger, progressive pols are using Twitter and social media as weapons against Trump and the GOP. Frankly I don't get social media, or the nuances to use it...but I'm sure glad others are stepping up.

Great read on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's use of Instagram. She's using the platform and has gained a following.

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram Is So Good

She knows how to use twitter...really has it done.

sycasey said:

---

The conservative attacks on Ocasio-Cortez really seem like weak sauce to me. I think they've underestimated how likable a politician she is, because she's young, female, and non-white (so exactly the the kind of person who doesn't run much in Republican circles).

You can disagree with her left-wing ideology, that's fine -- but assuming she's stupid seems like a bad approach.

---

I wouldn't assume she's stupid, but she sure says some puzzling things. I don't know that progressive populism is the best way to oppose conservative populism. Hopefully with time she will develop a more nuanced set of perspectives on policy to pair with her strong instincts and ability to communicate with young voters.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The conservative attacks on Ocasio-Cortez really seem like weak sauce to me. I think they've underestimated how likable a politician she is, because she's young, female, and non-white (so exactly the the kind of person who doesn't run much in Republican circles).

You can disagree with her left-wing ideology, that's fine -- but assuming she's stupid seems like a bad approach.

---

I wouldn't assume she's stupid, but she sure says some puzzling things. I don't know that progressive populism is the best way to oppose conservative populism. Hopefully with time she will develop a more nuanced set of perspectives on policy to pair with her strong instincts and ability to communicate with young voters.

---

Right, I also think it's silly to expect a first-year Congresswoman (who hasn't even been sworn in yet) to have nuanced policy perspectives. That will come.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The conservative attacks on Ocasio-Cortez really seem like weak sauce to me. I think they've underestimated how likable a politician she is, because she's young, female, and non-white (so exactly the the kind of person who doesn't run much in Republican circles).

You can disagree with her left-wing ideology, that's fine -- but assuming she's stupid seems like a bad approach.

---

I wouldn't assume she's stupid, but she sure says some puzzling things. I don't know that progressive populism is the best way to oppose conservative populism. Hopefully with time she will develop a more nuanced set of perspectives on policy to pair with her strong instincts and ability to communicate with young voters.

---

She does say puzzling things and at times I'm wondering what she's thinking. Also I thought, is she cutting ties that could matter later. But then I pulled back a little and took notice that she's 26 or 27? For EF sake, my nephew just turned 23 and graduated in May and he's a bit of a mystery to me (the millennial thing)...so I just applied that to ACO. Don't understand her communication style..but the link above starts to explain things. Otherwise, she's 26 or whatever and there's going to be growing pains. That said, she has "IT", and IT is a semi-rare gift.

For one, I think she's taken the attitude to EF the old ways and she's not taking prisoners...and that's youth but hey I had the same attitude at that age. Youth just might serve her now, especially in the new social media landscape. She knows what she's doing there. I'm not social media savvy, while she literally grew up with it, understands it at a different level. Mainly however I acknowledge it's a new game I don't quite understand and I'm going to put that aside and let her do her thing. She (and her generation) has more at stake fighting Trump and the GOP and she has momentum. As the saying goes, lead, follow or get out of the way. I'm going to let the hot hand go at it.

She's a socialist. Why should she pretend she's something else? She has no interest in adopting the "nuanced policies " of the corporate Democrats

This is true but she'll still need allies to get legislation passed and to get leadership roles, like committee chairs. Leadership roles is where the heavy lifting of legislation happens.

Example: Maxine Waters will chair the House Finance Committee and she has broad powers to investigate Trump but also Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo and others who are accused of laundering money, helping Russians and the GOP.

Now imagine ACO a few years down the line, with a little seasoning and experience, leading major committee as a socialist. That's what she should be aiming at. Disruption is good, shaking things up is good...but at some point you have to legislate and lead, and that's easier with allies.

Oh, she will play that game short term. Pelosi wants to be speaker so she is already conceding an increase in the number of committee representatives for the progressive caucus. But that's loose change; Ocasio's goal is to radically transform our politics and economy for a new generation not chair some committee. Her short term goal is to increase her party's power by primarying more Democratic fossils in urban areas like she and Presley did, and working hard to elect Sanders ( or someone who supports the DSA agenda) - power will then flow to her. It remains to be seen whether she can succeed within the Democratic Party.

ACO is smart. She knows you need leadership who can get it done, and frankly there's no alternative. The Dems opposed Pelosi are Blue Dog Dems looking to protect their seat.

Ocasio-Cortez backs Pelosi for speaker as long as she 'remains the most progressive candidate'

Another Bear said:

---

ACO is smart. She knows you need leadership who can get it done, and frankly there's no alternative. The Dems opposed Pelosi are Blue Dog Dems looking to protect their seat.

Ocasio-Cortez backs Pelosi for speaker as long as she 'remains the most progressive candidate'

---

Yup. The woman is smart as hell.

Come on guys. She gets basic facts wrong about economics and policies all the time. She may be smart as hell but she's often way out over her skis (which I guess you could say makes her quite presidential). For me personally, I like my politicians to have strong grounding in facts because those are ultimately where the rubber hits the road.

Here's one fact check that is by no means comprehensive: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/

It's 2018. Facts are so 20th century.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

It's 2018. Facts are so 20th century.

---

More like: they're for when you're actually writing legislation. When campaigning, some exaggeration is to be expected.

Another Bear said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

---

"Sooo...Kimberly is dating your son..."

---

They should start an investigation into that Democrat lying about being shorter than he is

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Come on guys. She gets basic facts wrong about economics and policies all the time. She may be smart as hell but she's often way out over her skis (which I guess you could say makes her quite presidential). For me personally, I like my politicians to have strong grounding in facts because those are ultimately where the rubber hits the road.

Here's one fact check that is by no means comprehensive: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/

---

That's a pretty biased and misleading article. One of the main point he tries to make is that the middle class is growing, with this graph:



They've probably arrived to this picture by fixing an income level for every group, ignoring basic facts like the decline in purchasing power for the vast majority, and decline in wealth levels.

The real picture is that the majority of Americans have no savings whatsoever, and their situation is becoming more prearious as they are faced with spiralling inflation in healthcare, education and housing costs.



https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/savings-advice/data-americans-savings/

Inequalities have widened in the past decades, we're now back to 1920s levels of inequality:






https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

The US now has a similar GINI index of income distribution as Mexico. The WP editorial does a good job of obscuring the basic reality that the US is becoming a whole lot more like a Latin American country than a European country in terms of income and wealth distribution (which I guess is what one would expect given the oligarch ownership of that paper):

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Come on guys. She gets basic facts wrong about economics and policies all the time. She may be smart as hell but she's often way out over her skis (which I guess you could say makes her quite presidential). For me personally, I like my politicians to have strong grounding in facts because those are ultimately where the rubber hits the road.

Here's one fact check that is by no means comprehensive: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/

---

For the record the Washington Post fact checker is wrong on one of those claims (the Bernie Sanders plan).

I like AOC more in style than substance. She fights back the way I wish more Democrats would fight back.

These claims about her inaccuracies are valid but up against the lies and errors of Trump, right wing media, and many Republicans - it is almost nothing.

I do wish she'd be more careful though, and I think she will. Liberals value truth and accuracy.

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Come on guys. She gets basic facts wrong about economics and policies all the time. She may be smart as hell but she's often way out over her skis (which I guess you could say makes her quite presidential). For me personally, I like my politicians to have strong grounding in facts because those are ultimately where the rubber hits the road.

Here's one fact check that is by no means comprehensive: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/

---

That's a pretty biased and misleading article. One of the main point he tries to make is that the middle class is growing, with this graph:



They've probably arrived to this picture by fixing an income level for every group, ignoring basic facts like the decline in purchasing power for the vast majority, and decline in wealth levels.

The real picture is that the majority of Americans have no savings whatsoever, and their situation is becoming more prearious as they are faced with spiralling inflation in healthcare, education and housing costs.



https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/savings-advice/data-americans-savings/

Inequalities have widened in the past decades, we're now back to 1920s levels of inequality:






https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

The US now has a similar GINI index of income distribution as Mexico. The WP editorial does a good job of obscuring the basic reality that the US is becoming a whole lot more like a Latin American country than a European country in terms of income and wealth distribution (which I guess is what one would expect given the oligarch ownership of that paper):

---

You said Latin America but you could just as accurately have said Russia

Also, how do less than 50% of a population have less the median income?

What a joke. John Roberts says the judiciary is unbiased- a huge and blatant lie- and it is treated as the sermon on the mount by the media.

dajo9 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

---

"Sooo...Kimberly is dating your son..."

---

They should start an investigation into that Democrat lying about being shorter than he is

---

Oh they will and while they're at it, they'll measure EVERYTHING...hands, toes, fingers, ding dongs. You know just because.

"Centimeters, inches...what's the difference?", Donald Trump.

Anarchistbear said:

---

What a joke. John Roberts says the judiciary is unbiased- a huge and blatant lie- and it is treated as the sermon on the mount by the media.

---

Yeah, Scalia and his crooked Uncle Tom compadre pretty much ended the independent judiciary when they ratified Florida fixing the election against Gore and opened the floodgates for dark money with the Citizens United decision.

Cal88 said:

---

That's a pretty biased and misleading article. One of the main point he tries to make is that the middle class is growing, with this graph:



They've probably arrived to this picture by fixing an income level for every group, ignoring basic facts like the decline in purchasing power for the vast majority, and decline in wealth levels.

---

I find it odd that you consider it a misleading article based on the one criticism you've levied, particularly since your criticism is based on a misreading is the quote by AOC and the article's analysis.

AOC said that the upper middle class doesn't exist any more. The article says that while the middle class is shrinking, the UMC has grown. The "upper" is a pretty important word in that context but you seem to have ignored it entirely.

I don't think anyone disagrees that inequality is increasing (and the article expressly acknowledges it) and if anything the growth of the UMC is a source of that inequality.

Regardless, that was just one of the many fact checks in the article, so even if you had a valid criticism of that one fact check, why would you claim that the article is biased and misleading? What is your basis for alleging bias?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That's a pretty biased and misleading article. One of the main point he tries to make is that the middle class is growing, with this graph:



They've probably arrived to this picture by fixing an income level for every group, ignoring basic facts like the decline in purchasing power for the vast majority, and decline in wealth levels.

---

I find it odd that you consider it a misleading article based on the one criticism you've levied, particularly since your criticism is based on a misreading is the quote by AOC and the article's analysis.

AOC said that the upper middle class doesn't exist any more. The article says that while the middle class is shrinking, the UMC has grown. The "upper" is a pretty important word in that context but you seem to have ignored it entirely.

I don't think anyone disagrees that inequality is increasing (and the article expressly acknowledges it) and if anything the growth of the UMC is a source of that inequality.

Regardless, that was just one of the many fact checks in the article, so even if you had a valid criticism of that one fact check, why would you claim that the article is biased and misleading? What is your basis for alleging bias?

---

It is pretty much useless to argue with a disingenuous lawyer, you're going to nit-pick and take words out of context ignoring the general meaning she's trying to convey, just like the Washington Post editorial did.

The WP fixated on one word, ignoring the general point she was making. Her quote about the middle class shrinking was taken out of context, she probably meant that the purchasing power of the middle class has greatly diminished. A middle class household a few decades ago had similar purchasing power and lifestyle patterns as the upper middle class today; families could afford housing, higher education and healthcare, often with just one income, whereas today households with dual incomes can barely make ends meet and have no savings. That's what she meant.

Her quotes about people having to work two jobs mirror her own background (her mother was a widower who had to moonlight as a maid to get by), and the experience of her constituents in NYC. where the working class is getting squeezed out.

I'm not surprised that the WP is targeting AOC, she had the temerity to criticize Amazon's extortion of municipal tax subsidies in their bidding process for their new headquarters...

If the Democrats aren't serious about addressing the issues raised by AOC, they're going to get whipped again in the next presidential election, four more years of whining about Trump and about Russian conspiracy theories.

Cal88 said:

---

It is pretty much useless to argue with a disingenuous lawyer, you're going to nit-pick and take words out of context ignoring the general meaning she's trying to convey, just like the Washington Post editorial did.

The WP fixated on one word, ignoring the general point she was making. Her quote about the middle class shrinking was taken out of context, she probably meant that the purchasing power of the middle class has greatly diminished. A middle class household a few decades ago had similar purchasing power and lifestyle patterns as the upper middle class today; families could afford housing, higher education and healthcare, often with just one income, whereas today households with dual incomes can barely make ends meet and have no savings. That's what she meant.

Her quotes about people having to work two jobs mirror her own background (her mother was a widower who had to moonlight as a maid to get by), and the experience of her constituents in NYC. where the working class is getting squeezed out.

I'm not surprised that the WP is targeting AOC, she had the temerity to criticize Amazon's extortion of municipal tax subsidies in their bidding process for their new headquarters...

If the Democrats aren't serious about addressing the issues raised by AOC, they're going to get whipped again in the next presidential election, four more years of whining about Trump and about Russian conspiracy theories.

---

You accusing me of being disingenuous is actually quite funny. You then go on to claim that the "biased and misleading" article from August was meant to target AOC bec of her criticism of Amazon which just happened. Maybe the Jeff Bezoz Amazon Washington Post knew that AOC would call Amazon just a "billion dollar company" instead of acknowledging that Amazon is close to a trillion in market cap.

As for taking her quote out of context, I've included the full quote here for everyone to see. It seems to me that the word "upper" was used quite intentionally by her to differentiate between UMC and MC, but I guess she will be glad to know that you are willing to mansplain things for her.

Quote:

---

"They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper-middle class is probably more moderate but that upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America." interview on "Pod Save America," Aug. 7

---

AOC doesn't like the Amazon New York giveaway so WAPO goes after her

AOC is 26? There's going to be some ups and downs but she has the added burden of being a Wing Nut target but it looks like she has swinging back down, and she's not afraid.

The Wing Nuts and cons hate her because she's savvy, smart and authentic, plus she represents a demographic the GOP have no answer for: women, people of color, the underclass and the marginalized. Thus they attack because that's all they know.

My guess, she makes senator by 40-45, unless she becomes a congressional lifer.