Sure, but she's going to generate more fundamentalists in opposition to her. I can say that I agree with many of Green's philosophies about government, while acknowledging that she is reckless with her speech and shouldn't be lauded. Now the left will use her as the face of the right in the same way AOC is the face of the left, which in turn will create more crazies. I'm cool with ousting these people from the public realm, but the left does not have the same standard. The right is always the one that must concede or condemn, based on the situation. Well, now they are fighting fire with fire. I can't say I blame them unless the left is willing to do the same, which they never do. May as well get on with it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.  You say, the left will use Taylor Greene as the face of the right, the same way the Republicans use AOC as the face of the left.  But then you say you don't want to oust Taylor Greene from the public sphere until the Dems oust AOC.  But if AOC is bad for the left, why do you want them to oust her?  You say, "The right is always the one that must concede or condemn..." but wouldn't getting rid of Taylor Greene be GOOD for the Republicans?   Wouldn't you want the Dems to KEEP AOC?

---

My problem with the libs on this board is they can't recognize the left's role in escalation. AOC should have been rejected immediately. The Dems knew she was a threat to the establishment, but she was propped up by pop culture and the media. Now she has WAY more influence than she should. Until you condemn your own, you will see more an more Karen's popping up. I think we're playing a dangerous game. The finger pointing needs to stop, but only one side is ever asked to act. Things aren't going to change under those conditions.

AOC won't be condemned by the left because what she advocates aligns with what most of them believe to varying degrees. 

On the other hand, AOC has been propped up by the right by attempting to portray her as a mainstream voice of the left. Too many times I've seen her say something which is obviously a prod for reaction and Republicans foolishly oblige her. As long as they keep feeding the troll, she'll keep growing in influence.

But wouldn't the Republicans want AOC to gain influence over the Democratic Party?  It would seem to be in the Republicans' best interest to, as you put it, keep feeding the troll. 

I'm a moderate.  So I wish they would BOTH go away.   But it seems like the right would want AOC to stay and say more stupid stuff, and the left would want Taylor Greene to stay and say more stupid stuff.

---

---

The danger of putting people like AOC on a pedestal is in the uninformed youth vote exponentially increasing and her methodology eventually becoming the norm. It's already happening. Good time to start looking for a property to escape to in the islands.

---

Sure, but she's going to generate more fundamentalists in opposition to her. I can say that I agree with many of Green's philosophies about government, while acknowledging that she is reckless with her speech and shouldn't be lauded. Now the left will use her as the face of the right in the same way AOC is the face of the left, which in turn will create more crazies. I'm cool with ousting these people from the public realm, but the left does not have the same standard. The right is always the one that must concede or condemn, based on the situation. Well, now they are fighting fire with fire. I can't say I blame them unless the left is willing to do the same, which they never do. May as well get on with it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.  You say, the left will use Taylor Greene as the face of the right, the same way the Republicans use AOC as the face of the left.  But then you say you don't want to oust Taylor Greene from the public sphere until the Dems oust AOC.  But if AOC is bad for the left, why do you want them to oust her?  You say, "The right is always the one that must concede or condemn..." but wouldn't getting rid of Taylor Greene be GOOD for the Republicans?   Wouldn't you want the Dems to KEEP AOC?

---

AOC won't be condemned by the left because what she advocates aligns with what most of them believe to varying degrees. 

On the other hand, AOC has been propped up by the right by attempting to portray her as a mainstream voice of the left. Too many times I've seen her say something which is obviously a prod for reaction and Republicans foolishly oblige her. As long as they keep feeding the troll, she'll keep growing in influence.

But wouldn't the Republicans want AOC to gain influence over the Democratic Party?  It would seem to be in the Republicans' best interest to, as you put it, keep feeding the troll. 

I'm a moderate.  So I wish they would BOTH go away.   But it seems like the right would want AOC to stay and say more stupid stuff, and the left would want Taylor Greene to stay and say more stupid stuff.

How exactly am I speaking out of both sides of my mouth? The dems had a chance to go after AOC when she showed up. They didn't. She says crazy [BLEEP] on the regular. Now the right gets one and we have to all stop and kick her out? For what? For AOC to continue her schtick unchecked? She will be the face of the democratic party. It's only a matter of time. Until the left starts tamping down it's rhetoric or gains enough power to marginalize and oppress their opponent, things will only continue to escalate. It's not rocket science.

---

You seem to be contradicting yourself.  You say, the left will use Taylor Greene as the face of the right, the same way the Republicans use AOC as the face of the left.  But then you say you don't want to oust Taylor Greene from the public sphere until the Dems oust AOC.  But if AOC is bad for the left, why do you want them to oust her?  You say, "The right is always the one that must concede or condemn..." but wouldn't getting rid of Taylor Greene be GOOD for the Republicans?   Wouldn't you want the Dems to KEEP AOC?

---

But wouldn't the Republicans want AOC to gain influence over the Democratic Party?  It would seem to be in the Republicans' best interest to, as you put it, keep feeding the troll. 

I'm a moderate.  So I wish they would BOTH go away.   But it seems like the right would want AOC to stay and say more stupid stuff, and the left would want Taylor Greene to stay and say more stupid stuff.

How exactly am I speaking out of both sides of my mouth? The dems had a chance to go after AOC when she showed up. They didn't. She says crazy [BLEEP] on the regular. Now the right gets one and we have to all stop and kick her out? For what? For AOC to continue her schtick unchecked? She will be the face of the democratic party. It's only a matter of time. Until the left starts tamping down it's rhetoric or gains enough power to marginalize and oppress their opponent, things will only continue to escalate. It's not rocket science.

I thought I explained it pretty well.  You said the left would make Taylor Greene the face of the right, and the right would make AOC the face of the left.  But then you said you don't think the right should get rid of Taylor Greene until the left gets rid of AOC.   You don't see the contradiction there?  If the left is going to make Taylor Greene the face of the right, it seems like it would be good for the right if they got rid of Taylor Greene.  But you seem to be resisting the idea, even though you said the left would make her the face of the right.  

Did I misinterpret what you wrote?

---

Sure, but she's going to generate more fundamentalists in opposition to her. I can say that I agree with many of Green's philosophies about government, while acknowledging that she is reckless with her speech and shouldn't be lauded. Now the left will use her as the face of the right in the same way AOC is the face of the left, which in turn will create more crazies. I'm cool with ousting these people from the public realm, but the left does not have the same standard. The right is always the one that must concede or condemn, based on the situation. Well, now they are fighting fire with fire. I can't say I blame them unless the left is willing to do the same, which they never do. May as well get on with it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.  You say, the left will use Taylor Greene as the face of the right, the same way the Republicans use AOC as the face of the left.  But then you say you don't want to oust Taylor Greene from the public sphere until the Dems oust AOC.  But if AOC is bad for the left, why do you want them to oust her?  You say, "The right is always the one that must concede or condemn..." but wouldn't getting rid of Taylor Greene be GOOD for the Republicans?   Wouldn't you want the Dems to KEEP AOC?

---

AOC won't be condemned by the left because what she advocates aligns with what most of them believe to varying degrees. 

On the other hand, AOC has been propped up by the right by attempting to portray her as a mainstream voice of the left. Too many times I've seen her say something which is obviously a prod for reaction and Republicans foolishly oblige her. As long as they keep feeding the troll, she'll keep growing in influence.

But wouldn't the Republicans want AOC to gain influence over the Democratic Party?  It would seem to be in the Republicans' best interest to, as you put it, keep feeding the troll. 

I'm a moderate.  So I wish they would BOTH go away.   But it seems like the right would want AOC to stay and say more stupid stuff, and the left would want Taylor Greene to stay and say more stupid stuff.

The Republicans only want AOC as a symbol in the hopes that people will see the folly of her views. Giving too much attention lends her ideas legitimacy. 

You guys are missing the main point in the difference between Greene and AOC. Greene is a serious loon who has expressed support for shooting Nancy Pelosi in the head. She's a wild-eyed conspiracy nut who has no business being in Washington. 

AOC, on the other hand, is a cheerleader for an ideology which is a proven failure. Like Bernie, she's just another purveyor of big government nostrum. 

AOC's ideas are merely flawed, Greene is deranged.

---

This place has become the echo-chamber to rule all echo-chambers.

No sir you are wrong.  There may be more conservatives here but both sides are represented and occasionally we actually swerve into meaningful conversations.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

---

AOC literally just accused Ted Cruz of trying to murder her. She is a zealot. She was always extreme. It's a fools errand to suggest she isn't radical in the political realm.

My point, TRM, is that when AOC came on the scene, she should have been roundly rejected by democrats as being too extreme, but she wasn't. She should have been pushed out of the party, but she wasn't. Conservatives then used her as the face of the democratic party, which creates a reaction from a fringe group that wants to match that level of extremism. Not all conservatives, of course, but a fringe group. Now, Green will be used as the face of the right. You think the left is going to moderate or get more extreme? That's a rhetorical question, because we already see the left calling for censorship that is unparalleled in my lifetime. All of conservatism is being attached to the crazies. This is typical game theory escalation. The rational choice is for both sides to moderate, but that's not how the game is being played by the left. Why shouldn't the right follow suit?

---

Any conservatives who are okay with AOC just to make a point are idiots. Her ideas are not the only thing people should be concerned about, its her ideology that makes her dangerous. And more young people than I care to think about see her as the future which means they think like she does.

I've often wondered why conservatives don't play fire with fire. I guess they feel they have a reputation to protect. They may need to loosen their grip and grow a pair because the left isn't playing around but they are playing for keeps.

---

Any conservatives who are okay with AOC just to make a point are idiots. Her ideas are not the only thing people should be concerned about, its her ideology that makes her dangerous. And more young people than I care to think about see her as the future which means they think like she does.

I've often wondered why conservatives don't play fire with fire. I guess they feel they have a reputation to protect. They may need to loosen their grip and grow a pair because the left isn't playing around but they are playing for keeps.

Don't underestimate people's ability to recognize extremism. She plays well in narrow segments but not widely. Have you ever noticed how Bernie receives high regards from the left but his ideas are either mitigated or dismissed? Bernie and AOC work in the 'aspirational' realm.

---

Yup. I've said repeatedly that the right will lose because of their principles. The left has many authors and philosophers on record seeking to exploit this "flaw" in their political opponent. For the left, it's only political power. For the right, it's about the preservation of a culture. The left will not abandon the progressives who use underhanded tactics. This leaves the right with the options of abandoning their morals or losing so much political power that they no longer have a voice to shape their own culture unless they resort to the same tactics. I don't believe the right can win and salvage their principles.

The time to act was 3 decades ago. The right has virtually no avenue to shape the mainstream cultural narrative anymore. Now you are seeing them resort to extremes as a last ditch attempt to reclaim that narrative.

---

Any conservatives who are okay with AOC just to make a point are idiots. Her ideas are not the only thing people should be concerned about, its her ideology that makes her dangerous. And more young people than I care to think about see her as the future which means they think like she does.

I've often wondered why conservatives don't play fire with fire. I guess they feel they have a reputation to protect. They may need to loosen their grip and grow a pair because the left isn't playing around but they are playing for keeps.

Don't underestimate people's ability to recognize extremism. She plays well in narrow segments but not widely. Have you ever noticed how Bernie receives high regards from the left but his ideas are either mitigated or dismissed? Bernie and AOC work in the 'aspirational' realm.

You're one of my favorite posters here, but you neglect the narrative. I have been learning a lot about Gramsci and Sorrel's views on the myths that shape culture. The left has almost a complete monopoly on shaping American mythology. The right is losing their ability to shape that, and, when it's gone, you will see a major overhaul in our nation. This is also somewhat neglecting the roles other nations are playing in weakening America.

---

Yup. I've said repeatedly that the right will lose because of their principles. The left has many authors and philosophers on record seeking to exploit this "flaw" in their political opponent. For the left, it's only political power. For the right, it's about the preservation of a culture. The left will not abandon the progressives who use underhanded tactics. This leaves the right with the options of abandoning their morals or losing so much political power that they no longer have a voice to shape their own culture unless they resort to the same tactics. I don't believe the right can win and salvage their principles.

The time to act was 3 decades ago. The right has virtually no avenue to shape the mainstream cultural narrative anymore. Now you are seeing them resort to extremes as a last ditch attempt to reclaim that narrative.

---

Don't underestimate people's ability to recognize extremism. She plays well in narrow segments but not widely. Have you ever noticed how Bernie receives high regards from the left but his ideas are either mitigated or dismissed? Bernie and AOC work in the 'aspirational' realm.

You're one of my favorite posters here, but you neglect the narrative. I have been learning a lot about Gramsci and Sorrel's views on the myths that shape culture. The left has almost a complete monopoly on shaping American mythology. The right is losing their ability to shape that, and, when it's gone, you will see a major overhaul in our nation. This is also somewhat neglecting the roles other nations are playing in weakening America.

You're being a bit of a doomsayer. The election of Trump shows the left does not have a monopoly. The left did not win this last election, Donald Trump lost it. Had the man any sense of diplomacy and prudence he would still be president. 

Hope is not lost. Try not to get wrapped around the axle with intellectual arguments because politics and sociology are not intellectual arenas. We have politicians and teachers unions to prove that.

---

Any conservatives who are okay with AOC just to make a point are idiots. Her ideas are not the only thing people should be concerned about, its her ideology that makes her dangerous. And more young people than I care to think about see her as the future which means they think like she does.

I've often wondered why conservatives don't play fire with fire. I guess they feel they have a reputation to protect. They may need to loosen their grip and grow a pair because the left isn't playing around but they are playing for keeps.

Don't underestimate people's ability to recognize extremism. She plays well in narrow segments but not widely. Have you ever noticed how Bernie receives high regards from the left but his ideas are either mitigated or dismissed? Bernie and AOC work in the 'aspirational' realm.

For now, but I think the point was young voters are being brainwashed into their ideology.  It's really a numbers game at this point.  At this rate, "someone" like AOC is bound to be in serious power sometime in the next 20 years. The problem is, by the time these young people grow up and understand the true ways of the world, they are replaced by more young, dumb voters. 

Since accurate history is slowly not being taught these days, we are bound to eventually repeat the bad parts of it.

---

Don't underestimate people's ability to recognize extremism. She plays well in narrow segments but not widely. Have you ever noticed how Bernie receives high regards from the left but his ideas are either mitigated or dismissed? Bernie and AOC work in the 'aspirational' realm.

For now, but I think the point was young voters are being brainwashed into their ideology.  It's really a numbers game at this point.  At this rate, "someone" like AOC is bound to be in serious power sometime in the next 20 years. The problem is, by the time these young people grow up and understand the true ways of the world, they are replaced by more young, dumb voters. 

Since accurate history is slowly not being taught these days, we are bound to eventually repeat the bad parts of it.

Not all young voters are supporting the left. It's important to remember that we are in the infancy of a technological and information revolution. It's so new that those of us with grown children can still reminisce with them about the old days of VCRs, landlines and CRT televisions. It's an ever evolving battleground which is making history quickly on its own and how opposing ideologies utilize it. 

It's also important to realize that history wasn't always taught accurately. Glorification of some events and persons have been taught at the expense of glossing over some ugly chapters in U.S. and world history. What may be claimed as inaccurate may just be history taught from alternate viewpoints. Maybe it's best to learn the bad parts of it to avoid repeating them. 

Unclench, guys. Don't interpret the present zeitgeist as the future.

---

I'm old enough to remember Democrats wishing Trump would die when he got Coronavirus..

No quarter shall be given..

---

It's so much fun tho, half the posts here just read as "the left are winning wahwahwah, young people hate Republicans wahwahwah". Suck it up ya bunch of whining [BLEEP].

---

It's so much fun tho, half the posts here just read as "the left are winning wahwahwah, young people hate Republicans wahwahwah". Suck it up ya bunch of whining [BLEEP].

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.  It was as inciteful as it was articulate.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

AOC literally just accused Ted Cruz of trying to murder her. She is a zealot. She was always extreme. It's a fools errand to suggest she isn't radical in the political realm.

My point, TRM, is that when AOC came on the scene, she should have been roundly rejected by democrats as being too extreme, but she wasn't. She should have been pushed out of the party, but she wasn't. Conservatives then used her as the face of the democratic party, which creates a reaction from a fringe group that wants to match that level of extremism. Not all conservatives, of course, but a fringe group. Now, Green will be used as the face of the right. You think the left is going to moderate or get more extreme? That's a rhetorical question, because we already see the left calling for censorship that is unparalleled in my lifetime. All of conservatism is being attached to the crazies. This is typical game theory escalation. The rational choice is for both sides to moderate, but that's not how the game is being played by the left. Why shouldn't the right follow suit?

It seems like what you are saying is that the right should not have to remove their ball and chain until the left removes their ball and chain.

---

I'm saying that even if the right did that, the left would not, which removes incentive to do so. The fringe groups need to be suppressed. This includes the progressives. This stuff is not happening in a bubble. The narrative is controlled by the left, so the picture that is painted is that only the right fringe groups are rising. Everyone on the right can see that that's not true, but many people in the middle and the left are being duped by this myth. Or believing that the right fringe is worse. They are the same animal. Once politics is reduced to power only, what's the obvious conclusion?

I have really been studying fascism for a couple months now. Trump is not a fascist, but the conditions are ripe in America for the rise of fascism. The left knows this and is working to suppress it, but I don't believe it's pure benevolence on their part. Fascism was the natural response to communism in Europe leading up to WWII. The communists were making their move in Italy and Germany, using similar tactics to what we see now... burning national monuments, protesting, rioting, etc. Instead of accepting Communism, a global ideology that was attempting to destroy Italian culture to replace it with Marxist values, Mussolini banded together people who had had enough of socialists and created the resistance, which is the beginning of fascism. He used their patriotism and love of country to form a resistance group. The sad part is that both ideologies borrowed heavily from the same philosophers. Both are left wing ideologies.

The same thing is happening here. The right is moving rapidly left compared to it's previous position, and you are seeing fringe groups starting to form coalitions. Trump easily could have been a Mussolini type figure, except he wasn't. He just doesn't have it in him. He's inarticulate and doesn't really hold any strong beliefs about ideology. He's just a guy that picked up on the right's frustrations that the left is getting out of control. The left has to rein in their radicals and reject them. This has to happen first, because what you are seeing on the right is a response to the radical left.

Homebiscuit, The "left" and "right" are constantly pushing back and forth within an existing paradigm until one force gains enough momentum to change the paradigm. This happens over and over in history. To believe that we will remain in the same paradigm just because it's been that way in your lifetime is naïve. That said, I hope you are correct. I really do. I just don't think that's the case.

---

Don't underestimate people's ability to think for themselves. You're citing a period in history when the flow of information came from only a few spigots. That is not true today.

For instance, I watched 60 Minutes last night because they did a segment on the Chinese incursion into the American biomedical industry and how it benefits them. At the end of the show they did a follow up of a previous story about Putin opponent Alexy Navalny who was poisoned then imprisoned.

Leslie Stahl ended the segment in her most smarmy tone, 'On President Biden's first day in office, he contacted Putin and grilled him about Navalny, which, by the way, was never done by the previous president.'

Ten years ago that would have drawn head shaking condemnation by the most ardent Republican. Nowadays? It draws head shaking disbelief at the obvious media bias because people are wide awake to the distortions being fed to them. Fake news is real. The knowledge that the Fourth Estate has been corrupted is fully accepted by all.

---