@blatham,
blatham wrote:
It just dawned on me that there's another reason why the right is so frightened of AOC. I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't think of this earlier. Eric Levitz has a helpful piece up on the age of Trump's base...
Quote:In 2016, Donald Trump commanded the support of only 28 percent of voters under 30, according to Pew Research. His disapproval rating among Americans under 35 currently hovers around 70 percent. And millennials’ antipathy for our Republican president isn’t personal; the Fox News grandpa-in-chief might be especially unappealing to the rising generation, but the kids don’t have much use for the GOP’s kinder, gentler reactionaries, either. Less than 30 percent of millennials wanted Republicans to retain control of Congress last year. And in broader measures of generational opinion, both millennials and Gen-Zers evince higher levels of support for liberal ideological premises and policy proposals than any older cohorts.
NYMag.....
This is sadly typical of your propaganda. Instead of adding some substantive comments or observations of your own on the subject at hand, you resort to posting prefabricated comments from the committed liberal sources you scour so assiduously. You are merely a parrot for the advocacy (most of it propaganda) of liberal commentators.
Apart from calling Republicans "evil" and "in need of extermination" from the voters, or "out of touch" with "luminary intellectual observers" (sic) such as AOC, you really do have very little indeed to offer readers of this thread.
Somehow you have come to claim a form of leadership over a small circle of rather slavish followers, perhaps in search of the positive feedback you dole out in response to their affirmation. I find that a bit pathetic on both sides.
The truth about politics here and in other countries is that it is a struggle for political power among seekers who generally want it above all other things. None of these seekers has an absolute hold on either enduring truth or virtue: the essential virtue of democracy is that the people (as opposed to self-appointed elites) get to choose among these contenders, based on their perceptions of just what is needed here and now - never mind their vacuous claims for the superiority of their favored political philosophy. That, indeed, is the very essence of democracy.
The vendors of supposed eternal truths regarding the governance of real human beings are, for the most part, peddling illusions. The enduring truths are individual freedom, limited government, separation of powers, and the checks and balances that limit the many destructive excesses of governments (and their leaders) that fill the pages of human history - across the world.
People here and everywhere can and should think for themselves and critically examine the promises of those self appointed elites who believe they alone know what's good for everyone else. Ordinary human beings are very adept at determining just what is in their short term and enduring self interest. (That's why follies such as Obama care fail of their own internal contradictions. It turned out that the "stupid" common people, whom Prof. Jonathan Gruber so scornfully derided, were very adept at detecting and rejecting the follies of his Obamacare creation and instead acting in their own lawful self interest.)
The cacophony of contemporary political discourse provides ample evidence of these truths. Instead of the vague promises of this or that abstraction, whether involving the currently fashionable group values or other vague, untested promises of future good, we should judge candidates based on the concrete details of things, actually capable of implantation, they promise to do in their term of office.
Blatham offers nothing at all, either original or quoted, to address these critical issues.
