Posted on 12/08/2018 4:38:33 AM PST by rustyweiss74
The question above is often asked rhetorically in response to Twitter posts by the embattled freshman congressman, who has become something of an ideological lightning rod since her emergence on the political scene.
...
So how did this utterly unspectacular creature, who previously worked as a bartender and a waitress in a taqueria, win a seat in Congress at the tender age of 28? A lot can be construed from census data on New York’s 14th congressional district, which she clutched away from a veteran Democratic congressman.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertyunyielding.com ...
“It’s a mystery how someone so blatantly ignorant can go from bartender to Congress.”
Politicians in general are not a very impressive group.
There you go again.
Clouding the issue with facts, logic and common sense.
The didn’t vote for her, they voted for the democrat. You could have put a turnip on the democrat line and it would have won.
Kind of like someone going from community organizer to Senator to President.....only in the Left’s world....
She still probably ranks in the top 25% of intelligence in her Congressional District. Plus, she's a college graduate, so that moves her into the top 15% of "Donkey Desirables". Finally, she's "Intersectional", whatever the heck THAT means, so she was a lock.
Lord have mercy on this great nation if other Alexandria Occasionally Coherent pick up on this trend in 2020 and beyond.
Similarly to Trump, AOC is very entertaining. But in a different way.
Hell, here in Illinois a high-school wrestling coach who had an affinity for sexually molesting and abusing boys for YEARS got elected to the House of Representatives, made it all the way to Speaker of the House, served, then went home and retired on a Government Pension.
It was only some years later that it finally became public knowledge via a money laundering scheme that he was nailed in that his sexual molestation/abuse finally came to light from his high-school coaching days.
Know who I'm talking about yet? It was J. Dennis "Denny" Hastert.
Some of us knew all the way back in 1992 that he was a pedophile. No one listened. No one seemed to care at the time because his political star was on the rise.
It's only when they finally crash and burn that people finally care about how they voted and shake their heads in disbelief.
It happened with Hastert, It's happened with that dipshit from NY, it happened with Kamala Harris, with Sheila Jackson Lee and more. It'll happen again.
Who votes for these people?
In my house, they're called f**king idiots.
Never forget, half the people in the world are dumber than the other half.
Of course this is the reason for the rats wanting all the illegal immigration....if it continues eventually we’ll have someone like ACO in the White House. Oh wait....we already did.
Maybe they wanted a combhead in Congress.
BUT my point is while conservatives are laughing at Cortez and ridiculing her, she's going to Congress. Any one of us is smart, intelligent, and loquacious enough to build a ground game to dislodge our local RINO/NeverTrump congresscritter..OR...primary and dislodge the Dems as a libertarian and ride the Trump train to DC.
Now, most of us aren't able to launch a campaign. Fair enough. But at LEAST we need to convert a tsunami of centrist friends and family to MAGA. THAT needs to be our focus. She can be ridiculed to serve as red pill fertilizer, but anything beyond that feeds her role as an intentional distraction...a Siren.
Of course that’s true - but the salient point about "the deep state” is that it functions with - or is controlled by - “the media.” Mark Twain said that “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” So it is, by and large, with “the media.” They say that because of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, nothing can be done about “the media.”If you take a look at that 1964 SCOTUS holding, which was unanimous (and more so, in that two dissents signed by 3 justices wanted to go further) you actually want to cheer its stand in favor of freedom of the press. The First Amendment is vital. But by itself it is not sufficient. We have other necessary laws, too. The problem with Sullivan is not that it is wrong, but the facts which were not brought before the Court in that case.
1A protects the people from having the government restricting what we can read (aside from libel and porno laws, which - existing as they did prior to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, constituted accepted bounds of “the” freedom . . . of the press before and after 1A was adopted). 1A long preexisted the Sherman AntiTrust Act of 1890, and was enacted by a polity which was not then worrying about private actors implementing de facto rather than de jure control over what the public could/would read.
The telegraph was demo’d by Morse in 1844, and by 1848 the NY Associated Press was starting up. The AP has as members a great many news organizations, and any major news organization will have relationships with one or more wire services. Each wire service constitutes a virtual meeting of many journalists. The effect of the wire services, especially but not exclusively the AP, is precisely what Adam Smith warned about in Wealth of Nations:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. (1776)Public concern arose over the propaganda power of the AP by about 1875, and the AP defended itself by pointing out that it carried the articles produced by its members, who (this was true at the time) didn’t agree about much of anything - so the AP itself was objective. But the ideological independence of the members of the AP could not withstand to acid test of the temptation to claim objectivity. From “newspapers are independent, and the AP is objective” it was just a hop, skip, and jump to “all journalists are objective.” This is a mutual admiration society, and also a conspiracy against the public. Actually trying to be objective is difficult, being called objective only requires that you call all other journalists objective in turn - and join a mob stoning to death the career of anyone who claims to be a journalist but who does not go along and get along.This explains why there is such a thing as “the media” as we know and “love” it. The "if it bleeds, it leads” negativity of journalism is called “objectivity,” and that constitutes cynicism. And being the opposite of faith, cynicism is anathema to conservatism.
The bottom line is that a suit must be brought against the AP and other wire services on antitrust grounds, pointing out that in fact the full expression of the full range of ideas contemplated by 1A and the Sullivan decision is suppressed by a conspiracy against the public. And that the government has a tendency to respect the illegitimate claims of the “the press” which presents itself to the government and the courts at times as a monolith. What are we to make of someone who claims a pass to the White House as a matter of right? And of “a press” which takes that claim seriously, and promotes it??? The FCC tends to take the “objectivity” claims of “the press” at face value and credit the broadcasting of what Establishment journalism chooses to say and to avoid saying as established, and important, truth. The very existence of the Federal Election Commission is based on the assumption that Establishment journalism is objective.
The reduction of cost of rapid transmission of information which changed first from infinite (before telegraphy) to “very expensive” - creating the value of the wire services in conserving bandwidth - has now proceeded to the stage of very cheap. And that means that wire services are no longer “too big to fail.” Damages sufficient to destroy them can be contemplated, and are justified.
Anyone can, theoretically, sue under Sherman. I’m not a lawyer; if I knew how to do it I would. The Republican Party is the primary victim of the Sherman violation, because of Establishment Journalism’s cynicism towards society and the middle class. It seems like the Trump Republican Party would have the chutzpah required to pull it off; the McCain Republican Party never would.
Never under estimate the stupidity of a democrat voter.
I understand it that NYC dominates the state. Disgusting pattern seen elsewhere like Wash, Oregon, California, Colorado, etc.
Bingo!
It did.
Cynthia McKinney
Hank Johnson
Maxine Waters
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Plenty of high profile dummies in Congress, voted in by their idiot constituents. There are many more, but these are the ones who immediately come to mind.
Broadly, there are three impediments to MAGA continuing past 2020 (i.e., reasons why Trump could lose the election):
1. Unchecked Dem Fraud
2. Media propaganda bearing fruit
3. Deplorable inaction
Let's leave #1 & #3 alone for this thread. I think we can agree that they need to be tackled (my personal view is #3 is a greater threat than #1 and we can control #3 but, again, let's leave that alone for now).
If you're saying that there is media "collusion" in peddling Ocasio-Cortez articles, I would not be surprised if that's happening. Indeed, as I said earlier, the Cheese In the Maze strategy is the diversionary Tweet strategy that Trump used so effectively in 2017 (less so in 2018). I believe some Dem operative read LS' article and may be using the freshman congresswoman from Queens to try out that strategy on Deplorables. Sadly, I think it's working.
On your point regarding AP being broken up under Sherman, I should state up front that I am not a fan of Sherman from a Constitutional perspective. Why? Because Sherman derives its power from - wait for it! - the Commerce Clause. If the Founders really disliked such firms/enterprises, they'd have broken up the British East India operation in the US. They didn't, and thus I consider it a stretch to support Sherman on the basis of original intent, and CERTAINLY I have trouble supporting Sherman with regard to being propped up by the CC.
The AP is in a death spiral. Its revenue has fallen more than $100 million in the past five years, from $622MM in 2012 to $510 million in 2017. This is despite local papers axing their reporters and relying more on the AP to do their job. I have got to imagine a good bit of this decline comes from, as you write:
The reduction of cost of rapid transmission of information which changed first from infinite (before telegraphy) to “very expensive” - creating the value of the wire services in conserving bandwidth - has now proceeded to the stage of very cheap. And that means that wire services are no longer “too big to fail.”
....and I would add "no longer as relevant as they were." Alternative media, Twitter, and the like have effectively destroyed the need for a wire service as a news "file sharing" service.
True, conservatives and Deplorables always knew the press was no good. Indeed, Jefferson is well-known for his disdain for the press:
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224
"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118
"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179
That said, Trump has done more than almost any other individual to shine light on the absence of "objectivity" in "objective" places like CNN, NBC, and CBS. The numbers bear this out:
I truly believe that this nation has turned a corner on believing in journalists, reporters, and "the media." Of course, there will ALWAYS be believers, and some men you can't reach. But as flat earthers show, there will always be some baseline level of followers in any fantasy.
In this light, I think it's a waste of time and resources to "go after" the AP or network news (which is also watching its viewership numbers fall) on anti-trust grounds. I believe it'd be more prudent and yield higher dividends if instead we spend our time evangelizing our friends and family to get them to jump on the Trump Train.
Well said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.