Ridiculous Question

SoxIlliniRob wrote:It's a silly question, but worth discussion.  Is Ocasio Cortez already the most famous House member ever?  I know, it's silly, but holy geez this chick is going to have more Twitter followers than Trump pretty soon at her current rate.  They made a big deal about her having 2 million followers about 10 days ago.  I looked today and she has 2.4 million.  Has a younger, less experienced, less powerful person every wielded so much power and upset so many people?  Fox is now covering her 24/7.  Granted, she's a bit whacky and sometimes VERY naive, and she sometimes says some of the dumbest shit since Trump last spoke, but she's sure ballsy and is what appears to be a kind-hearted person.  She's also a millennial that sure as hell knows how to work the Twitterverse.  Hope she's not just a flash in the pan.  It's a blast watching her cause angry white conservatives to piss their pants every day.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:It's a silly question, but worth discussion.  Is Ocasio Cortez already the most famous House member ever?  I know, it's silly, but holy geez this chick is going to have more Twitter followers than Trump pretty soon at her current rate.  They made a big deal about her having 2 million followers about 10 days ago.  I looked today and she has 2.4 million.  Has a younger, less experienced, less powerful person every wielded so much power and upset so many people?  Fox is now covering her 24/7.  Granted, she's a bit whacky and sometimes VERY naive, and she sometimes says some of the dumbest shit since Trump last spoke, but she's sure ballsy and is what appears to be a kind-hearted person.  She's also a millennial that sure as hell knows how to work the Twitterverse.  Hope she's not just a flash in the pan.  It's a blast watching her cause angry white conservatives to piss their pants every day.

She, like Trump, is a media creation. Does it matter how many Twitter followers someone has? Whoopie Goldberg of all people said that she needs to shut her mouth and learn her job. 


“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” - Mark Twain

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:It's a silly question, but worth discussion.  Is Ocasio Cortez already the most famous House member ever?  I know, it's silly, but holy geez this chick is going to have more Twitter followers than Trump pretty soon at her current rate.  They made a big deal about her having 2 million followers about 10 days ago.  I looked today and she has 2.4 million.  Has a younger, less experienced, less powerful person every wielded so much power and upset so many people?  Fox is now covering her 24/7.  Granted, she's a bit whacky and sometimes VERY naive, and she sometimes says some of the dumbest shit since Trump last spoke, but she's sure ballsy and is what appears to be a kind-hearted person.  She's also a millennial that sure as hell knows how to work the Twitterverse.  Hope she's not just a flash in the pan.  It's a blast watching her cause angry white conservatives to piss their pants every day.

She, like Trump, is a media creation. Does it matter how many Twitter followers someone has? Whoopie Goldberg of all people said that she needs to shut her mouth and learn her job. 


“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” - Mark Twain

blondy28 wrote:


I'm somewhere in the middle.  First, I don't think she's a media creation.  She got elected before any of us knew who the hell she was.   She was elected based on hard work and selling people on her ideas.  I don't think twitter followers means much, other than the fact that it must drive Trump nuts.  I actually do follow her and have since she won the primary, because I want to know what she has to say.  She's naive, for sure, and I suspect she will make a lot of mistakes and will learn along the way.  I wouldn't go as far as saying she needs to "shut her mouth and learn her job", but I do think she needs to pick her moments a little better.   Fox and the right have been trying to bring her down and shut her up since she got the nomination, and I love that she's giving it right back to them.   Some things she's said/done have made me cringe a bit, because you don't want to give the right any ammunition (and the fact that they're using a video of her dancing in high school and her borrowed wardrobe for a photo shoot to "prove" that she's actually rich tells you they have very little substance to use against her), but I love what she did trying to track down Mitch McConnell.  I FUCKING LOVE THAT!  That chinless motherfucker needs to be shamed then primaried then run out of Washington on a rail.

blondy28 wrote:And totally as an aside, I've soured on Kamala Harris.  I love her as a senator and I love her on the judiciary committee, but I'm not liking her posturing to run for president.  Mind you, I would have loved her to BE president, but it didn't seem like her moment, and she's been a little sketchy in her fundraising.  I'm guessing she's not doing anything that everyone else is doing, but I don't like where she creates a poll and it's really a link to her fundraising.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:And totally as an aside, I've soured on Kamala Harris.  I love her as a senator and I love her on the judiciary committee, but I'm not liking her posturing to run for president.  Mind you, I would have loved her to BE president, but it didn't seem like her moment, and she's been a little sketchy in her fundraising.  I'm guessing she's not doing anything that everyone else is doing, but I don't like where she creates a poll and it's really a link to her fundraising.

Can't quite figure out what to make of her.  Sometimes she seems as serious as a heart attack, to the point where I find her almost scary and intimidating.  Other times I see her on something like Colbert, and she's charismatic and seems extremely likable in a way that she might be able to pull in centrists just because she seems to have that certain something.  Still, it appears to me that there's something lacking.  Bear in mind a lot of these Dems haven't the faintest clue how to handle running for president.  You can win a senate seat just by seeming like you're smart and serious, but it takes more to win a presidency.  Just seems like all of these supposed candidates are at a loss for how to carry themselves.  That was Bernie's advantage in 2015.  He just ran as his cantankerous, goofy self.  Didn't change a thing, and it ended up being fairly endearing.  I still have Klobuschar as my dark horse, unless she goes and changes how she carries herself, too.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:It's a silly question, but worth discussion.  Is Ocasio Cortez already the most famous House member ever?  I know, it's silly, but holy geez this chick is going to have more Twitter followers than Trump pretty soon at her current rate.  They made a big deal about her having 2 million followers about 10 days ago.  I looked today and she has 2.4 million.  Has a younger, less experienced, less powerful person every wielded so much power and upset so many people?  Fox is now covering her 24/7.  Granted, she's a bit whacky and sometimes VERY naive, and she sometimes says some of the dumbest shit since Trump last spoke, but she's sure ballsy and is what appears to be a kind-hearted person.  She's also a millennial that sure as hell knows how to work the Twitterverse.  Hope she's not just a flash in the pan.  It's a blast watching her cause angry white conservatives to piss their pants every day.

She, like Trump, is a media creation. Does it matter how many Twitter followers someone has? Whoopie Goldberg of all people said that she needs to shut her mouth and learn her job. 


“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” - Mark Twain

I'm somewhere in the middle.  First, I don't think she's a media creation.  She got elected before any of us knew who the hell she was.   She was elected based on hard work and selling people on her ideas.  I don't think twitter followers means much, other than the fact that it must drive Trump nuts.  I actually do follow her and have since she won the primary, because I want to know what she has to say.  She's naive, for sure, and I suspect she will make a lot of mistakes and will learn along the way.  I wouldn't go as far as saying she needs to "shut her mouth and learn her job", but I do think she needs to pick her moments a little better.   Fox and the right have been trying to bring her down and shut her up since she got the nomination, and I love that she's giving it right back to them.   Some things she's said/done have made me cringe a bit, because you don't want to give the right any ammunition (and the fact that they're using a video of her dancing in high school and her borrowed wardrobe for a photo shoot to "prove" that she's actually rich tells you they have very little substance to use against her), but I love what she did trying to track down Mitch McConnell.  I FUCKING LOVE THAT!  That chinless motherfucker needs to be shamed then primaried then run out of Washington on a rail.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:The most common thread among tea partiers was religious dogma, despite their claims that they were about reducing gov't spending.  That said, I understand your comparison.  AOC and the Tea Party people were equally noisy.  Seems to me like AOC is mostly using her platform to troll some of the uptight right, while also using it to advance ideas that people consider taboo.  Overall, I'm ok with that, while wishing she'd stop saying such dumb things.  Better get used to this.  She is a perfect example of the millennial generation.  They do things differently.  They think differently.  They believe we oldies have screwed shit up royally (actually, we have!) and they figure the only way to fix it might be by extreme measures.  I recently read a pretty good column in either Forbes or WSJ about how royally the boomer generation has both gotten the absolute best benefits out of our government, and also screwed it the fuck up for the younger generations, as we'll have hell to pay in fixing the deficits, debts, crumbling infrastructure, gun culture, ridiculous overabundance of $$ in politics, etc.  All of this was ushered in and enabled by the boomer generation running the country for the last 30 yrs.

If I can see a difference between AOC and the Tea Party, AOC seems to be concentrating all of her energy (be it noisy, dumb or annoying to many) toward advocating for the poor, needy, disadvantaged, etc.  I'm not sure that the Tea Party was doing any such thing.  They wanted to bring more religion into government and to cut gov't spending on safety net programs.  Similar tactics, maybe.

blondy28 wrote:


Wasn't the tea party first a movement before it was a political caucus?  I kind of thought it was based in racism which then had to find a cause to rally around.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Wasn't the tea party first a movement before it was a political caucus?  I kind of thought it was based in racism which then had to find a cause to rally around.

I've heard a lot of people claim it's based in racism, but you're not going to get Tea Party folks to ever admit to that.  That said, Pew or Gallup polled something like a few thousand of them about their views regarding gov't spending, racism, education, religion, etc.  The most common thread between them all was a want for more religion and religious tests in public schools, government, and society.  After that, they wanted less government benefits, such as food stamps and welfare, etc.  Despite all their yapping about gov't spending, religion was their most common thread.  And now those same people love the guy that's pushing the deficit in a very terrible direction, and who demonstrates not a shred of religious leaning in his body.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Wasn't the tea party first a movement before it was a political caucus?  I kind of thought it was based in racism which then had to find a cause to rally around.

I've heard a lot of people claim it's based in racism, but you're not going to get Tea Party folks to ever admit to that.  That said, Pew or Gallup polled something like a few thousand of them about their views regarding gov't spending, racism, education, religion, etc.  The most common thread between them all was a want for more religion and religious tests in public schools, government, and society.  After that, they wanted less government benefits, such as food stamps and welfare, etc.  Despite all their yapping about gov't spending, religion was their most common thread.  And now those same people love the guy that's pushing the deficit in a very terrible direction, and who demonstrates not a shred of religious leaning in his body.

Dontcha think it's more than a claim?  I mean, they had signs with Obama hanging by a noose.  Sure, it wasn't all of them, but you didn't see any of the people marching alongside that sign tearing it down.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Wasn't the tea party first a movement before it was a political caucus?  I kind of thought it was based in racism which then had to find a cause to rally around.

I've heard a lot of people claim it's based in racism, but you're not going to get Tea Party folks to ever admit to that.  That said, Pew or Gallup polled something like a few thousand of them about their views regarding gov't spending, racism, education, religion, etc.  The most common thread between them all was a want for more religion and religious tests in public schools, government, and society.  After that, they wanted less government benefits, such as food stamps and welfare, etc.  Despite all their yapping about gov't spending, religion was their most common thread.  And now those same people love the guy that's pushing the deficit in a very terrible direction, and who demonstrates not a shred of religious leaning in his body.

Dontcha think it's more than a claim?  I mean, they had signs with Obama hanging by a noose.  Sure, it wasn't all of them, but you didn't see any of the people marching alongside that sign tearing it down.

Well, Pam, I think you know where I stand in terms of my opinions about the Tea Party, regarding racism and any other applicable "isms."  I didn't mean to bring that into the conversation because I was just talking about what they admit to being (religious zealots).  I figure if they actually admitted to being religious zealots in a poll, then nobody can accuse me of being subjective when I say AOC is different, because their cause is steeped in racism, bigotry and religious zealotry, while she very much is not.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Wasn't the tea party first a movement before it was a political caucus?  I kind of thought it was based in racism which then had to find a cause to rally around.

I've heard a lot of people claim it's based in racism, but you're not going to get Tea Party folks to ever admit to that.  That said, Pew or Gallup polled something like a few thousand of them about their views regarding gov't spending, racism, education, religion, etc.  The most common thread between them all was a want for more religion and religious tests in public schools, government, and society.  After that, they wanted less government benefits, such as food stamps and welfare, etc.  Despite all their yapping about gov't spending, religion was their most common thread.  And now those same people love the guy that's pushing the deficit in a very terrible direction, and who demonstrates not a shred of religious leaning in his body.

Dontcha think it's more than a claim?  I mean, they had signs with Obama hanging by a noose.  Sure, it wasn't all of them, but you didn't see any of the people marching alongside that sign tearing it down.

Well, Pam, I think you know where I stand in terms of my opinions about the Tea Party, regarding racism and any other applicable "isms."  I didn't mean to bring that into the conversation because I was just talking about what they admit to being (religious zealots).  I figure if they actually admitted to being religious zealots in a poll, then nobody can accuse me of being subjective when I say AOC is different, because their cause is steeped in racism, bigotry and religious zealotry, while she very much is not.

I always thought it was kind of her approach that they were comparing to the Tea Party, not the issues, and frankly I don't think they even have a similar approach.  But speaking of religion, did you see the 2nd lead pastor at the 2nd largest mega church in this area just went down.  Hybels went down at Willow Creek, and now it's the guy at Harvest Bible.  Was surprised to turn on the new Mancow show this morning and her Mancow ripping the guy a new one.

cream919 wrote:I think she needs to learn the job before spouting off in the way she is.


*********************************************************************


Like Donald Trump? I'm sorry my friend but, for better or worse, the days of statesmanship and somber leadership are long gone. What we have now is a new reality with people who know how to use that reality and manipulate people in the process. Not saying I applaud it, just saying we'd better learn to live with it. Look at that piece of shit in the White House. The old saying has finally come true. Literally anyone can grow up to be president. How's that working out for us?