Campaign funding struggles for AOC..

[Dill]

(08-30-2019, 04:01 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not that you're stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject.  And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance.  Insecure much?e stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject.  And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance.  Insecure much?
#2  What was your original point?  It tends to change when you're shown to not know what you're talking about.  Perhaps when you can explain what your point actually is we can debate.

 Sure, here’s a recap.

First point, made in #29, was that politicians are more beholden to donors than the people who vote for them. And that I blamed the voters who enabled them.

Your response in #30: “That wouldn’t matter if people weren’t so easily duped by commercials and op eds.”
Sounds like you were agreeing that most blame should be placed on voters. But I don’t think “commercials and op eds” are responsible for nearly the “duping” that Fox News and Rush and similar media influences are, along with a large network of Evangelical churches. And second, donor money would still be a problem even if voters weren’t “duped.”  

So in #42 I said: “People are influenced by quite a bit more than that. In 2010, the Tea party didn’t fuel the largest midterm swing since the Depression because of Commercials and op eds.”  I did not say that because I thought the Tea Party was not “hijacked.” Quite the opposite. Those who compose the Tea Party, morphed into Trump’s base now, are the most “hijacked” of any voter demographic. And as I have frequently argued on other threads, this is a long-term development, with clear precedents in the 80s and 90s, going back to the Republican Southern Strategy.

#49 gives your apparent counter: “You're absolutely correct.  Some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures. Not many, but it happens.”
 
That surprised me, since I wasn’t saying “some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures.” Voters reacting to policy failures aren’t generally “duped” by commercials and op eds, are they? Hence my post #73 asking for clarification:
 
As I understand it, the Tea Party claimed deficit spending was the issue--until Trump promised a wall and a Muslim ban.
Some were for the Affordable Care Act but against Obamacare. (That means they didn’t really grasp the “policy failure” they were reacting to.)
 
The point of this being that, if their ire could be shifted so quickly and easily from the deficit to the Wall and Muslims, then perhaps what is in play is a lot of free-floating anger which can be attached, detached, and re-attached to various policy issues according to how the anger is managed.  For those who don’t think this good for the country, all the more reason to worry about donors, and less reason to worry about “commercials and op eds.”  
 
Your response, #74, continues to surprise:
The Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump. You're trying to create a false reality from 6-8 years ago, which is unsurprising from you. But no one will ever accuse you of NOT peddling fake news.
Movement actually has roots with Ron Paul and Fair Tax pre-2008.  But of course they got handled like most of the ignorant electorate.
 
Tedious to point out that a claim the Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump doesn’t refute any point I have made, since I wasn’t claiming it was ONLY hijacked by Trump and ONLY in 2016. Further, one of my points was that they weren’t voting in their own interest back in 2010. So why do I need to be told they were hijacked before Trump?  And why is the Tea Party, which you represented as voting in reaction to policy failures, NOW in your view “hijacked”?  Was I arguing the Tea Party had no Ron Paul roots?  How is any of this “peddling fake news,” or “creating a false reality”? Certainly not just because you say it is. Looks like you are imputing points to me that I did not make, and then correcting my "pretended ignorance" with a fanfare of verbal abuse.
 
More puzzling: in post #77 with no specification, you charge “obfuscation” “strawman” and “false equivalent.” 
 
?? What? Which? Where”??  and you claim “you explained it.” “Trump is something else entirely and nothing to do with the Tea Party.”  Well 1) that looks like a claim to be examined/debated. Not something you have “explained” and certainly nothing you have proven. And 2) it looks like you still miss the point. Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of “hijacked”? And perhaps on what makes some groups more “hijackable” than others?  If Trump hijacks the Tea Party you are certain that has nothing to do with the Tea Party?
 
So to sum this up: Donors control politicians because voters allow and even abet it.  Voters do this because (to borrow your term) they are hijacked by donors, working through a system of news and online outlets that generate anger and identify enemies to be targeted. If the Trump phenomenon has “nothing to do with the Tea Party” it is only because some targets have been shifted.  Hillary is still bad, but immigrants are now the immediate threat. What deficit?