AOC Becoming Unpopular

Moderate Right · Mar 18, 2019

OldFatGuy said:
I know many on the left. It is not what they are thinking about as solutions. They know the score. They just want better government direction and impetus.

When I put together a development package, after design and costs analysis, the first thing I attend to is removing governmental obstacles, from building inspectors with their hands out to politicians looking for a piece of the action. I have no problem selling those packages, making money without bothering to break ground.

Crowley handed the baton, the chairmanship of the Queens County Democrats, to Ralph Meeks, one of the most corrupt politicians we've seen in Queens for decades. Maybe the most corrupt since Matty Troy, infamous for his rip off of the parking ticket system. Ralph is as dirty as they come. He passionately hates me because he knows he cannot extort a dime from one of my projects. I've heard all his threats, cajoling, begging, etc. and laughed in his face. He doesn't understand how I can toss him aside. I cross my t's and dot my i's before he knows what is happening. I know others who do the same, and it frustrates all those who are corrupt.

Years ago, when I refused to payoff a local politician, when doing a relatively small project, he retaliated by having a Sanitation Dept. Police Officer maliciously leave me one to three tickets everyday, but because this officer couldn't find anything wrong, she gave me tickets that applied to neighboring properties as if they were mine and part of my project. I brought all the tickets at once to one hearing, with evidence showing not one of them applied to my property and making the case, verbally, for harassment. The tickets were dismissed at the hearing. I gathered them up, more than 350 tickets, brought them to the politician's office, barged through to his private office, kicked open his door and dumped them on his desk as he sat there. I warned him if I saw him again I'd personally beat him till he'd needed serious hospitalization. I then broke his desk in two. Never saw him again except at Democratic fundraisers, a few local philanthropic fundraisers, and then he would avoid me as best as possible. I'd always made sure he caught a smile from me. Sometimes it takes a display of muscle and an evil temper. These guys are always cowards seeking the paths of least resistance.

I actually believe you. I really do, but, if I were to play devil's advocate I would ask how a guy can be wanting to get you via tickets and all and then when you barge into his office and break his desk and threaten to hospitalize him, why wouldn't he call the police to get you at that time? It would be far greater gratification than giving you parking tickets. In any event, I think we are going off the rails here.

OldFatGuy · Mar 18, 2019

Moderate Right said:
I actually believe you. I really do, but, if I were to play devil's advocate I would ask how a guy can be wanting to get you via tickets and all and then when you barge into his office and break his desk and threaten to hospitalize him, why wouldn't he call the police to get you at that time? It would be far greater gratification than giving you parking tickets. In any event, I think we are going off the rails here.

They weren't parking tickets, they were Sanitation Tickets, common for construction sites. Debris piles up, a ticket, ice and snow isn't shoveled, a ticket, street isn't swept 6" from the curb, ticket, and so on. At $50-100 per ticket, the costs mounted up, along with the cost of time fighting them, which most won't bother with, just consider them a cost of business.

At that time, he knew I had a reputation for violence, within the law, but still a reputation. He had never seen it first hand, and I was intimidating, and I was the police.

All my partners at the time were off duty police officers as was I or firemen, buying old houses, rehabbing them in our off time, and selling them. Occasionally the same with slightly larger commercial projects, like strip centers. Renovating and re-renting eyesores in iffy neighborhoods. This was all low level stuff, but I learned as we grew, no different than what went on for higher level transactions. Politicians always had their hands out, along with many bureaucrats. Everyone we encountered was running a protection racket from themselves. I wouldn't tolerate it or accept it. Quickly gained a reputation as being too dangerous, one way or another to pursue. Ran into the same with corrupt union leaders as we grew, and they only understood violence, or threat thereof as a hands off signal. Sometimes a broken leg or dropping a dime was the only response to keep away the parasites. I know it sounds harsh today, but looking back it not only worked, it worked better than giving in when we grew to more sophisticated deals and parasites. They figured there were easier paths of less resistance and left us alone. We didn't ask for or demand political help, but we did maintain a local political presence and carried votes. Construction and development are not clean games. Mafioso suppliers and union leaders, their political friends, need to be weeded out so they can't extort you.

Other developers succumb, and the lure of public contracts makes them rich. We never took on public contracts. I'm glad we did what we did, proving anyone could do the same. Build better product without kowtowing to government incentives or corruption. We never had a problem selling quality product and playing it straight with our clientele. Our reputation has been immaculate, and as a result, we wasted far less money on litigation.

One of my partners recently went into a contract for a property in an estate, expecting to tear down the house, built 4 others to replace it. The contract required the premises be delivered tenant free. One tenant refused to move, without a lease, but with an understanding of how landlord tenant court works. The estate executor, an attorney representing the estate requested use of the down payment to cover the litigation costs for removing the tenant, who was an unlawful sublet, My partner, also an attorney agreed. After the tenant was removed, the executor refused to recognize the contract, claiming he never heard of my partner. We learned one of the beneficiaries of the estate had found another buyer for more money and despite a court order to convey the premises prior to his location of a different buyer, he thought he could just brush off my partner. My partner slapped a lis pendens on the property, preventing any other sales, and the property went into litigation. A few weeks later, the executor attorney learned my partner is my partner, for many years, and tho I wasn't directly involved in the transaction, my money made the deal possible. A week later he offered to close the deal, and we did. A reputation can accomplish wonders. The other buyer, having learned of who was in the deal, and the shenanigans, withdrew his offer. Not because he feared us, but because he respected us, and knew we could also be good to have as friends. He is another straight player with his own reputation to maintain.

This deal was small potatoes, but bread and butter for my partner. 3 or 4 transactions like this one per year, and he nets before taxes a half a mil annually, far more than his law practice produces, and for which he must work harder.

GreatNews2night · Mar 18, 2019

sangha said:
I'm not a big fan of his though I think he's on the right track.

I wouldn't know. He irritated me so much in 2016, I couldn't stand his voice and his repetitious one-trick-pony talks [everything is Wall Street's fault - when many don't realize that Wall Street is actually very important to many Americans, not only to those who have disposable income to invest in stocks; if Wall Street were to tank, pension plans would too, the economy would too, state budgets would too; everybody would suffer, so it's not as black-and-white as Sanders preached], so I haven't listened to him at all this time - he gives me hives. So, is he a bit more reasonable this time? Because in 2016, he sounded very out-of-touch to me, with populist propositions that were impossible to fund (such as free college for all). I'm asking seriously, not being sarcastic. In what way do you think that Sanders is on the right track?

Maybe but I don't see that happening in the near term

I still doubt that America is ready to elect a radical leftist, seen by many as a communist (although most don't even know what the term means)

Ahlevah · Mar 18, 2019

JustHanging said:
And I think Trump has proven he knows his base. What do you think? We're talking about people who literally cheer when Trump tells them how stupid they are.

There's a difference between "poorly educated" and "stupid." You're forgiven for your ignorance.

Ahlevah · Mar 18, 2019

NWRatCon said:
Don't be so sure. I'm an old white male, with a great deal of common sense, and it won't work on me. I know what a socialist is, and what it is not.

Well, if you're old, then you probably remember how much the press hated Richard Nixon. And yet he trounced George McGovern. I realize that was a long time ago, but McGovern wasn't as far to the left as these bozos running for office now:

Consumed by internecine battles and the idea of opposition, Democrats run the risk of again nominating someone like McGovern who pleases progressives but steers a course too far from the country’s center of political gravity to win, even as Trump continues his funhouse mirror impression of Nixon as the avatar of white cultural-grievance politics.

Politics today are much different than they were then, as is the shape of the American electorate. But there are parallels that Democrats should bear in mind as they nurse their hopes of driving Trump from the Oval Office. Trump is a culture warrior, and progressives today are perfectly willing to engage that sideshow—just as they did 45 years ago with Nixon.

Look no further than the recent controversy over NFL players’ protests over police violence and racism, which Trump has successfully portrayed for most voters as an insult to men and women in uniform, the American flag, mom and apple pie.

“If the Democrats become the party of those in favor of kneeling rather than standing for the national anthem,” says historian Jeffrey Bloodworth, author of Losing the Center: A History of American Liberalism, 1968-1992, “that would be a full McGovern.”

Are Democrats Headed for a McGovern Redux?

And McGovern was a veritable John Bircher compared to some of these Democrats.

sangha · Mar 19, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
I wouldn't know. He irritated me so much in 2016, I couldn't stand his voice and his repetitious one-trick-pony talks [everything is Wall Street's fault - when many don't realize that Wall Street is actually very important to many Americans, not only to those who have disposable income to invest in stocks; if Wall Street were to tank, pension plans would too, the economy would too, state budgets would too; everybody would suffer, so it's not as black-and-white as Sanders preached], so I haven't listened to him at all this time - he gives me hives. So, is he a bit more reasonable this time? Because in 2016, he sounded very out-of-touch to me, with populist propositions that were impossible to fund (such as free college for all). I'm asking seriously, not being sarcastic. In what way do you think that Sanders is on the right track?

I still doubt that America is ready to elect a radical leftist, seen by many as a communist (although most don't even know what the term means)

Sanders doesn't want to destroy Wall St. He just recognizes that Big Business has to much power over the political process. Their push for ever increasing profits has led to policies that are weakening the middle class. Everything a healthy middle class depends on is becoming more and more expensive. And their incomes are stagnating

GreatNews2night · Mar 19, 2019

sangha said:
Sanders doesn't want to destroy Wall St. He just recognizes that Big Business has to much power over the political process. Their push for ever increasing profits has led to policies that are weakening the middle class. Everything a healthy middle class depends on is becoming more and more expensive. And their incomes are stagnating

Then, that's what he should have said, instead of the monotone "down with Wall Street, Wall Street, Wall Street." Every answer to every question asked of him, here he came with the Wall Street mantra. Why was that? Because he thought his voters were stupid and wouldn't understand him if he highlighted the importance of Wall Street for America's economy and prosperity, but preached for more sensible regulation?

For all his posturing as honest, he appeared to be just as dishonestly populist as that guy who actually won the election.

Lots of people campaign on the idea that the middle class is oppressed. The problem is, once they win, they forget their campaign promises and join the interests fostered by the powerful lobbies. A study by Stanford University showed that only 0.5% of everything voted/signed into law by Congress/the White House benefits the lower and middle classes, and 99.5% benefits the upper classes. Given that it's not just 0.5% of elected officials who campaign pretending to embrace the values and interests of the middle class, you see what I mean.

I'm not even sure if Bernie Sanders, once elected, would do what he preached. He appeared to me to be as phony as the next sleazy politician. An opportunist who spend decades dismissing the Democratic Party, then joined just to run, and then damaged the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party while whining and complaining of the system - I bet he wouldn't be whining if the exact system were benefiting him rather than his opponent, as seen in his flip-flops about superdelegates - at one point he wanted them to vote for him after spending months saying that they shouldn't decide anything.

I don't have a lot of respect for Bernie Sanders, who in decades of political life, was actually very ineffective as a Senator.

Moderate Right · Mar 19, 2019

OldFatGuy said:
They weren't parking tickets, they were Sanitation Tickets, common for construction sites. Debris piles up, a ticket, ice and snow isn't shoveled, a ticket, street isn't swept 6" from the curb, ticket, and so on. At $50-100 per ticket, the costs mounted up, along with the cost of time fighting them, which most won't bother with, just consider them a cost of business.

At that time, he knew I had a reputation for violence, within the law, but still a reputation. He had never seen it first hand, and I was intimidating, and I was the police. All my partners at the time were off duty police officers as was I or firemen, buying old houses, rehabbing them in our off time, and selling them. Occasionally the same with slightly larger commercial projects, like strip centers. Renovating and re-renting eyesores in iffy neighborhoods. This was all low level stuff, but I learned as we grew, no different than what went on for higher level transactions. Politicians always had their hands out, along with many bureaucrats. Everyone we encountered was running a protection racket from themselves. I wouldn't tolerate it or accept it. Quickly gained a reputation as being too dangerous, one way or another to pursue. Ran into the same with corrupt union leaders as we grew, and they only understood violence, or threat thereof as a hands off signal. Sometimes a broken leg or dropping a dime was the only response to keep away the parasites. I know it sounds harsh today, but looking back it not only worked, it worked better than giving in when we grew to more sophisticated deals and parasites. They figured there were easier paths of less resistance and left us alone. We didn't ask for or demand political help, but we did maintain a local political presence and carried votes. Construction and development are not clean games. Mafioso suppliers and union leaders, their political friends, need to be weeded out so they can't extort you.

Other developers succumb, and the lure of public contracts makes them rich. We never took on public contracts. I'm glad we did what we did, proving anyone could do the same. Build better product without kowtowing to government incentives or corruption. We never had a problem selling quality product and playing it straight with our clientele. Our reputation has been immaculate, and as a result, we wasted far less money on litigation.

One of my partners recently went into a contract for a property in an estate, expecting to tear down the house, built 4 others to replace it. The contract required the premises be delivered tenant free. One tenant refused to move, without a lease, but with an understanding of how landlord tenant court works. The estate executor, an attorney representing the estate requested use of the down payment to cover the litigation costs for removing the tenant, who was an unlawful sublet, My partner, also an attorney agreed. After the tenant was removed, the executor refused to recognize the contract, claiming he never heard of my partner. We learned one of the beneficiaries of the estate had found another buyer for more money and despite a court order to convey the premises prior to his location of a different buyer, he thought he could just brush off my partner. My partner slapped a lis pendens on the property, preventing any other sales, and the property went into litigation. A few weeks later, the executor attorney learned my partner is my partner, for many years, and tho I wasn't directly involved in the transaction, my money made the deal possible. A week later he offered to close the deal, and we did. A reputation can accomplish wonders. The other buyer, having learned of who was in the deal, and the shenanigans, withdrew his offer. Not because he feared us, but because he respected us, and knew we could also be good to have as friends. He is another straight player with his own reputation to maintain.

This deal was small potatoes, but bread and butter for my partner. 3 or 4 transactions like this one per year, and he nets before taxes a half a mil annually, far more than his law practice produces, and for which he must work harder.

Violence is not within the law. Breaking a guy's desk in half is against the law. Threatening him with violence is against the law. As I said, we are going way off the rails here. This really has nothing to do with the thread.

OldFatGuy · Mar 19, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Violence is not within the law. Breaking a guy's desk in half is against the law. Threatening him with violence is against the law. As I said, we are going way off the rails here. This really has nothing to do with the thread.

I understand your point of view. Nevertheless, in this life, we do what we do. I'm not a proponent of violent action, yet violence has its place, and at times is the only solution to problems that cannot be otherwise resolved. It is the solution of last resort. Better a display of violence than violence against a person. Obviously, at the time of this incident, I was not concerned with applicable law. I never buried anyone under poured concrete, if that makes you feel any better?

What it does have to do with the thread is to illustrate the naiveté of many of our freshmen politicians, as to exactly how dirty politics is.

Moderate Right · Mar 19, 2019

OldFatGuy said:
What it does have to do with the thread is to illustrate the naiveté of many of our freshmen politicians, as to exactly how dirty politics is.

And also the fact that many of the electorate are naive in thinking that the freshmen politicians are somehow virgins and won't be further corrupted by the system.

sangha · Mar 19, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
Then, that's what he should have said, instead of the monotone "down with Wall Street, Wall Street, Wall Street." Every answer to every question asked of him, here he came with the Wall Street mantra. Why was that? Because he thought his voters were stupid and wouldn't understand him if he highlighted the importance of Wall Street for America's economy and prosperity, but preached for more sensible regulation?

For all his posturing as honest, he appeared to be just as dishonestly populist as that guy who actually won the election.

Lots of people campaign on the idea that the middle class is oppressed. The problem is, once they win, they forget their campaign promises and join the interests fostered by the powerful lobbies. A study by Stanford University showed that only 0.5% of everything voted/signed into law by Congress/the White House benefits the lower and middle classes, and 99.5% benefits the upper classes. Given that it's not just 0.5% of elected officials who campaign pretending to embrace the values and interests of the middle class, you see what I mean.

I'm not even sure if Bernie Sanders, once elected, would do what he preached. He appeared to me to be as phony as the next sleazy politician. An opportunist who spend decades dismissing the Democratic Party, then joined just to run, and then damaged the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party while whining and complaining of the system - I bet he wouldn't be whining if the exact system were benefiting him rather than his opponent, as seen in his flip-flops about superdelegates - at one point he wanted them to vote for him after spending months saying that they shouldn't decide anything.

I don't have a lot of respect for Bernie Sanders, who in decades of political life, was actually very ineffective as a Senator.

While I am not a big fan of his, i found your description of him as answering every question by slamming Wall street to be beyond realistic. Here's a link to his response to Trump's SOTU speech. He responds to a variety of issues that Trump brought up by talking about a range of issues. Wall street is mentioned only once

Sanders Response to 2019 State of the Union Address - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Here's his statement about Trump's 2020 budget (one mention of Wall st.)

Sanders Statement on Trump's 2020 Budget - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Here's the transcript from his first campaign rally in 2019

Bernie Sanders Iowa 2020 campaign rally full speech transcript

3 mentions of Wall st. but it's a much longer speech and he talks about a variety of issues like education, for profit prisons, family farms, criminal justice reform, etc

GreatNews2night · Mar 19, 2019

sangha said:
While I am not a big fan of his, i found your description of him as answering every question by slamming Wall street to be beyond realistic. Here's a link to his response to Trump's SOTU speech. He responds to a variety of issues that Trump brought up by talking about a range of issues. Wall street is mentioned only once

Sanders Response to 2019 State of the Union Address - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Here's his statement about Trump's 2020 budget (one mention of Wall st.)

Sanders Statement on Trump's 2020 Budget - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Here's the transcript from his first campaign rally in 2019

Bernie Sanders Iowa 2020 campaign rally full speech transcript

3 mentions of Wall st. but it's a much longer speech and he talks about a variety of issues like education, for profit prisons, family farms, criminal justice reform, etc

Well, then, maybe he is changing his tune (smarting up from his defeat) because all the examples you've quoted are from a time *after* the 2016 campaign. At the time, he *was* a populist one-trick-pony who wouldn't shut up about Wall Street. Like I said, I wouldn't know because I stopped listening to Bernie Sanders, given that he turned me off so badly in 2016. If he is changing his tune, good for him, but I wouldn't trust him. I'd say he is changing his tune just because he lost, and he is looking for a better facade. For me, he is a populist, ineffective, unrealistic, shallow, opportunistic loser.

sangha · Mar 20, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
Well, then, maybe he is changing his tune (smarting up from his defeat) because all the examples you've quoted are from a time *after* the 2016 campaign. At the time, he *was* a populist one-trick-pony who wouldn't shut up about Wall Street. Like I said, I wouldn't know because I stopped listening to Bernie Sanders, given that he turned me off so badly in 2016. If he is changing his tune, good for him, but I wouldn't trust him. I'd say he is changing his tune just because he lost, and he is looking for a better facade. For me, he is a populist, ineffective, unrealistic, shallow, opportunistic loser.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...peech-at-the-2016-dnc/?utm_term=.6433dfe1adb6

Transcript: Bernie Sanders speech in Burlington, Vermont - POLITICO

Here's the full text of Bernie Sanders's Iowa speech - Vox

GreatNews2night · Mar 20, 2019

sangha said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...peech-at-the-2016-dnc/?utm_term=.6433dfe1adb6

Transcript: Bernie Sanders speech in Burlington, Vermont - POLITICO

Here's the full text of Bernie Sanders's Iowa speech - Vox

Sorry, TLDR, I'm not about to read the same 2016 Bernie Sanders speeches that bored me to death when I listened to them live in 2016.

sangha · Mar 21, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
Sorry, TLDR, I'm not about to read the same 2016 Bernie Sanders speeches that bored me to death when I listened to them live in 2016.

I never expected you to read. Facts cause cognitive dissonance in the poorly informed.

GreatNews2night · Mar 21, 2019

sangha said:
I never expected you to read. Facts cause cognitive dissonance in the poorly informed.

Who says I'm poorly informed? The fact that Bernie Sanders turns me off and irritates me, makes of me a poorly informed person? I've listened to these same speeches at the time of the campaign, found them to be a bunch of populist crap, and I'm not in the mood for another dose of the same. Don't assume things about me just because I don't like Bernie Sanders and his shallow ideas.

sangha · Mar 21, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
Who says I'm poorly informed? The fact that Bernie Sanders turns me off and irritates me, makes of me a poorly informed person? I've listened to these same speeches at the time of the campaign, found them to be a bunch of populist crap, and I'm not in the mood for another dose of the same. Don't assume things about me just because I don't like Bernie Sanders and his shallow ideas.

Not liking Sanders doesn't make you poorly informed. Thinking he answers every question by talking about Wall street does.

GreatNews2night · Mar 21, 2019

sangha said:
Not liking Sanders doesn't make you poorly informed. Thinking he answers every question by talking about Wall street does.

Have you heard of something called hyperbole?

sangha · Mar 22, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
Have you heard of something called hyperbole?

So, now that you were proven wrong, your "defense" is that you knew you were lying from the start.

Well played, Sir! :lamo:

GreatNews2night · Mar 22, 2019

sangha said:
So, now that you were proven wrong, your "defense" is that you knew you were lying from the start.

Well played, Sir! :lamo:

No, dear. The "he only talks about Wall Street" is a way of speaking. I see that you don't understand these things. Let me try to explain to you, slowly, even with examples, to make it easier for you. Sanders *is* mostly a monotone and shallow populist who repeats the Wall Street mantra very often, to seduce his gullible followers. However, evidently, it's not the ONLY thing he says. It would be hard to hold a conversation if someone only mentioned two words over and over, in a 12-month campaign, right? Anybody would understand that. Anybody. So your interpretation that I'm "lying" and "uninformed" when I simply used a hyperbole is frankly laughable.

Can you imagine? Say, an interview:

"Good night, Senator Sanders. Thanks for being here on WCYZ TV."
"Wall Street."
"I'm sorry, Senator?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm... I don't understand. Are you trying to make a point, Senator?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm... OK. Moving on. Senator, what are your thoughts about running again for president?"
"Wall Street."
"Senator, please, I asked you a question."
"Wall Street."
"Weird. OK, let's try this. Senator, do you think you can beat president Trump in 2020?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm, OK. Senator, can you please stop saying Wall Street and answer my question?"
"Wall Street."
"OK, well, I see we are not getting anywhere. Thanks for speaking with us tonight, Senator. Do you have any last words for the American people, to close this interview?"
"Wall Street."

-----------

Pretty absurd, no? Are you able to understand that? Are you able to grasp that I never meant to imply that this is actually, literally, ALL that he ever says??? Do I *really* need to explain this to you???

------------

It remains true, though, that Senator Sanders *often* and even *mainly* at times, simplifies issues around the populist mantra that most problems in America stem from Wall Street. That is a fact, and saying so is not a lie, nor misinformation.

I hope now you can grasp this rather obvious concept.

sangha · Mar 25, 2019

GreatNews2night said:
No, dear. The "he only talks about Wall Street" is a way of speaking. I see that you don't understand these things. Let me try to explain to you, slowly, even with examples, to make it easier for you. Sanders *is* mostly a monotone and shallow populist who repeats the Wall Street mantra very often, to seduce his gullible followers. However, evidently, it's not the ONLY thing he says. It would be hard to hold a conversation if someone only mentioned two words over and over, in a 12-month campaign, right? Anybody would understand that. Anybody. So your interpretation that I'm "lying" and "uninformed" when I simply used a hyperbole is frankly laughable.

Can you imagine? Say, an interview:

"Good night, Senator Sanders. Thanks for being here on WCYZ TV."
"Wall Street."
"I'm sorry, Senator?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm... I don't understand. Are you trying to make a point, Senator?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm... OK. Moving on. Senator, what are your thoughts about running again for president?"
"Wall Street."
"Senator, please, I asked you a question."
"Wall Street."
"Weird. OK, let's try this. Senator, do you think you can beat president Trump in 2020?"
"Wall Street."
"Hm, OK. Senator, can you please stop saying Wall Street and answer my question?"
"Wall Street."
"OK, well, I see we are not getting anywhere. Thanks for speaking with us tonight, Senator. Do you have any last words for the American people, to close this interview?"
"Wall Street."

-----------

Pretty absurd, no? Are you able to understand that? Are you able to grasp that I never meant to imply that this is actually, literally, ALL that he ever says??? Do I *really* need to explain this to you???

------------

It remains true, though, that Senator Sanders *often* and even *mainly* at times, simplifies issues around the populist mantra that most problems in America stem from Wall Street. That is a fact, and saying so is not a lie, nor misinformation.

I hope now you can grasp this rather obvious concept.

The thing is, not only is what you said not literally true, it is also not figuratively true.

Hyperbole is one thing. Hysteria is a completely different thing

GreatNews2night · Mar 25, 2019

sangha said:
The thing is, not only is what you said not literally true, it is also not figuratively true.

Hyperbole is one thing. Hysteria is a completely different thing

I'm tired of you and your personal offenses (the hallmark of someone who doesn't have a valid point). From now on, I'll be ignoring all your posts. Have a nice life.