She's a rising star. You know it. Rockaction knows it. All the frightened conservatives on my Facebook who are constantly posting memes about her know it. There's a reason she's a freshman senator and getting more attention from the right than any other Democrat on earth not names Pelosi. I certainly hope she doesn't become like Trump and starts spewing childish and unoriginal insults all day to delight her supporters. But every once in a while, I love that she smacks his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
Widbil83
Footballguy
A few of us in this thread called out the AOC white knights for hypocrisy yesterday and several posts mysteriously disappeared hours later. So tread lightly apparently.
rockaction
Footballguy
No I don't. I'm only posting in here because you guys are obsessed with her. I think she's a buffoon who will go away soon.
:shrugs:
I think we both know she's not going away anytime soon. And THAT'S the reason your entire party is obsessed with her.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, we both don't know that. If I had to bet, I'd bet her own party buries her, or everyone perceives her as a joke. And I'm not a Republican. Never registered Republican. I'm a conservative fusionist right and left libertarian.
You know so little, and declare so much.
I believe there's 2 points.
1) Junior is right that AOC is not going away anytime soon. She is guaranteed re-election.
2) Will she be in the spot light long term is debatable.
rockaction
Footballguy
This is the rub. I'd bet not. She'll do the cable show circuit for a contrasting voice to whatever idiot the right is trotting out on some issue.
She'll be relegated to a Maxine Waters role. Her own party will be embarrassed of her. They already are taking action like they are.
I agree unless she dials it back. She gives way too much ammunition to R's and others.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Well, you’re assuming that she doesn’t change the party in her image, sorta like how Trump was an embarrassment to the GOP until the GOP became the Trump party.
This is anecdotal for sure but my leftist 15 year old daughter is a huge fan. It seems like younger democrats love her and older Democrats are wary of her. That suggests her influence may grow over time rather than shrink.
rockaction
Footballguy
Bolded: True. If she resonates with up and coming voters, then it's entirely possible. I'm sort of betting against it, though.
Italicized: Anecdotal is fine in my book. Sometimes there is no fallacy of addition when it comes to youth movements and the like. It's always good to get the pulse of what a bloc of voters or potential voters is thinking, and sometimes that happens through extrapolation.
One world of caution about your anecdote, though: Your daughter is fifteen. When I was fifteen, I was listening to the Dead Kennedys and talking about blood for oil. By the time I was twenty-one, I was radically different in my outlook after meeting some real totalitarian leftists in education. Things change, and in a hurry.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It wouldn't surprise me if you're right. Trump and AOC are both emblematic of a change in the way we to talk to one another and how we view political conflict, and I think that change could certainly intensify when people who grew up on social media work their way into government.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
For some additional anecdotal evidence, I'm 32 and the vast majority (I'd wager >90%) of people in my personal social network are 100% on board with AOC and the new Progressives of the party. Of course, that's a highly limited group of people who went to very liberal colleges and subsequently chose to live in very liberal areas of the country, so I'm basically in prime AOC supporter demographics and location. However, even my 63 year old mother who was never a "radical" is all aboard the Progressive train. That's almost entirely because of Trump and the current GOP, though. She's become a liberal meme Facebook spammer in the last two years.
rockaction
Footballguy
Thanks. My folks are also disgusted with Trump and my mother is a moderate Republican. My father was disgusted with Reagan and supply side and became a liberal ages ago. But yeah, I can see very liberal people hopping on the AOC train.
As far as I can tell, most people I know aren't really on board, but I don't check social media politics anymore because of the political rancor. I do music and personal messages and social outings, but that's about it. I skip the political stuff. Perhaps I should get back into -- not commenting -- but trying to ascertain the pulse of what people are saying.
You mentioned in another thread that you took some time away from paying much attention to politics in general. How did that go?
The recent New Yorker cartoon kind of resonated with me. I like to pretend that being well informed about political stuff is part of my civic duty as a voter, but I’m just kidding myself. I can spend two hours before each election cramming in order to vote well enough. The rest is basically just entertainment, and I’m starting to think it’s not a particularly rewarding form of entertainment. It’s seductive, though.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't know, following politics right now seems like the most dramatic entertainment there is. I've already told my kids that they should be paying attention because this is the craziest stuff that will happen in their lives by far. I guess your tastes may vary.
She is full of vigor, seems like a fun person, she's a fighter... However, with the Green New Deal outline she released to NPR and some of her other statements regarding policy positions, she is coming across as a vacuous dilettante with regard to policy and politics. Her recent celebrity makes me recall a statement by Edward R. Murrow:
It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other.
I hope she can grow into a more knowledgeable politician with regard policy, because god knows she has the drive and the charisma to achieve her goals and we don't want those goals to be based on folly and ignorance.
It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other.
I hope she can grow into a more knowledgeable politician with regard policy, because god knows she has the drive and the charisma to achieve her goals and we don't want those goals to be based on folly and ignorance.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
It depends on who advises Cortez. Right now her main influence and who is behind most of the Green Deal is a Cornell professor. If you even saw an interview with him he is an odd man to say the least.
The writers for the past few seasons have been at the top of their games, no doubt, but is it really better than reading classic novels, swimming in the ocean, rewatching Arrested Development, having a spa day, or doing some gardening?
I mean, yeah, it’s obviously better than gardening, but you get the idea.
rockaction
Footballguy
Thanks for asking. I think I was happier, and it went well, but there was something lacking. I don't think (?) I follow politics for entertainment or sport; I follow to be informed, and I felt like there was some stuff going on that I really missed out on as a citizen (especially the Kavanaugh stuff, which I totally missed. I'm still unsure what happened). So it was bittersweet. I kind of came to the conclusion that Christopher Hitchens did: You might be through with politics, but politics isn't through with you. What I resolved to do, honestly, was to try and find a happy medium and to recalibrate my temperament when it came to matters of politics, especially on this board. Whether I succeed or not is to be determined. I may be one of those people that get so passionate that it doesn't work for me.
But yeah, I was definitely more at peace with everything when I stopped following it or watching the news. As a sort of microcosm, I'm on this board a ton and I found that you can really fracture relationships by delving into politics too much. I'd like to think people can compartmentalize (and I think -- think -- I can) but that isn't always the case. Anyway, as with most things in life, there was a trade off. I traded being informed for being contently and blissfully out of it, and I'm not sure exactly how I'll be in the future. I used to work in D.C. in a political capacity and left because, well, I was out of control partying but mainly because of what I saw politically, so it's not like I'm above dropping out of politics again.
As for the bolded, I'm actually surprised to hear you say that. Not to blow smoke up you-know-where, but you seem to be really informed and thoughtful and you sort of lead discussions; or, at least everybody listens when you have something to say. I think that's important. I can, however, see that if your premise is that it is entertainment, it's not particularly rewarding. I've found the exact same thing. It causes me stress and makes me upset often. And that's about how I feel about it.
I may very well drop out again if it gets too upsetting or I may become what I was. At any rate, I'm going to try and moderate my consuming of news or expressing opinion so that I can stay informed and still remain calm and happy.
And the cartoon reminds me of certain people I know and a lot of cable news. Kind of funny, actually, with a dose of seriousness.
I don't know if I look at it as entertainment, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. These are certainly crazy times, and it makes for theater better than Broadway.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Well, you can still do some of that other stuff too.
I do think there's something to be said for the fact that so many people are following politics closely these days. Back in the olden days of like 20 years ago, there were a lot of entertainment choices that were broad-based enough that allowed for the kind of "water cooler talk" at work or school that allowed people of different backgrounds and preferences to have some common interests. You might be a jerk face but if you watch Seinfeld every week now we've got something to talk about. But the fractured media landscape has really reduced those opportunities. Politics is really one of the only big stories that most people are following these days, at least to some degree.
I think this is a good point depending on which water cooler you stand next to. I know plenty of people who couldn't name the Senate Majority Leader if asked.
Also, I know plenty of people who consider themselves to be very insightful and obviously correct about politics even though they just repeat whatever they recently heard on FOX News. I would much rather try to find something Seinfeldian to discuss with them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
I was going to question this when I saw your Husker logo, then I saw that you live in Minneapolis...Carry on
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Good read from someone smarter than us:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18220756/bill-gates-tax-rate-70-percent-marginal-modern-monetary-theory
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18220756/bill-gates-tax-rate-70-percent-marginal-modern-monetary-theory
timschochet
Footballguy
I’m not liking the Maxine Waters comparison- AOC is already far beyond that level. But as to her future, it really depends on how she proceeds from here.
Despite her rather shallow proposals (so far anyway) in interviews she doesn’t come off as stupid in the least. She’s very good with social media, rivalling our President in her effective use of it.
Most importantly, she has something that few politicians, young or old, are able to maintain: likability. Reagan had it, and Bill Clinton. Kamala Harris has it. It’s a personal warmth that emanates from her, that makes you want to like her. So long as she has that, I think she’ll continue to do well.
Despite her rather shallow proposals (so far anyway) in interviews she doesn’t come off as stupid in the least. She’s very good with social media, rivalling our President in her effective use of it.
Most importantly, she has something that few politicians, young or old, are able to maintain: likability. Reagan had it, and Bill Clinton. Kamala Harris has it. It’s a personal warmth that emanates from her, that makes you want to like her. So long as she has that, I think she’ll continue to do well.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, that seems nuts. I never really got into macroeconomics, but the idea that printing a lot of money won’t cause inflation seems refutable just using basic microeconomics.
As you increase the ratio of bananas to apples in an economy, the price of apples in terms of bananas will increase. What is true of bananas in that sense should also be true of dollars.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Competence, intelligence, charisma, likability.
But I may be biased- to me, Maxine Waters is in a fierce competition with Michelle Bachmann, Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve King, and Louis Gohmert for worst and dumbest congressperson in modern history.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
No, you're probably not wrong. I wasn't comparing them as competent individuals, though. I was saying their role in the party might be the same should things like the GND keep getting leaked. Thanks for the clarification.
timschochet
Footballguy
Dumbest question ever. But unlike the other 5 he doesn’t have a long history of ####### behavior.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
No doubt. And there are equal numbers who cite what they hear direct from CNN and MSNBC. Ignorance is an equal opportunity characteristic.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Yes, but the big difference is that CNN and MSNBC are not mirror images of FOX. You’re absolutely right, though, that a great many people on both sides tend to overestimate their original contributions to political discussions when they’re really just repeating well-worn talking points.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
To be honest..only 10-12 people post in this thread though. But it is her thread so she should be getting attention.
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
She's been in congress for 2 months and nobody can stop talking about here even on the news
that is nothing but good news for her
And taking the lead on significant proposals. I bet that the majority of conservative posters here couldn't name 10 democratic congress members. But every single one knows and obsessively posts about AOC. She's been shot out of a canon and people are taking note. And every meme posted in an attempt to bash her just makes her more popular. Maybe someone should dig up another video of her looking fun and outgoing and beautiful in a college video. This one will surely take her down.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
AOC's Green New Deal will get a vote after all. In the Senate.
I guess now AOC knows where Mitch is.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
I wonder if she’s going to take the hint. She could really throw a wrench into the Democrats chances in 2020 if she keeps this up.
How to Design a Green New Deal That Isn’t Over the Top
The emphasis should be on climate change while limiting costly new entitlements.
By Noah Smith
February 12, 2019
The planet is in grave danger from climate change. No reasonable person can doubt this fact. Drastic and immediate action is needed to reduce global carbon emissions.
But that doesn’t mean that any sort of drastic action is a good one. The Green New Deal, proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has two big flaws. First, the plan overreaches in its desire to deliver a raft of expensive new entitlements — guaranteed jobs, benefits, health care, housing, education, income and more. If the large deficits required to pay for all of these things ended up harming the economy, it would actually hurt the cause of limiting climate change rather than help it. Second, the plan focuses far too much on the U.S.’s own carbon emissions. The U.S. accounts for only about 14 percent of global carbon output, and that percent is falling every day. The climate change battle will be won or lost in developing countries such as China:
[graph shown in link]
So I propose an alternative Green New Deal, which would focus on actually defeating climate change. Some of the proposals here are included in the Green New Deal resolution; some are not.
The first pillar of an alternative Green New Deal would be green technology. If the U.S. can discover cheap ways of manufacturing cement and concrete without carbon emissions, and of reducing emissions from agriculture, it will give developing countries a way to reduce carbon output without threatening their economic growth. To this end, the U.S. should pour money into research. The budget of ARPA-E, the agency charged with leading this research, should be increased from about $300 million to $30 billion per year.
The second way to move green technology forward is to encourage the scaling of these technologies. As companies build more solar power, batteries, smart grids, low-carbon building retrofit kits and other green technologies, the costs go down. To that end, the government should provide large subsidies to green-energy companies, including solar power, batteries and electric cars, as well as mandating the replacement of fossil-fuel plants with zero-carbon plants.
Infrastructure spending is also important. The original Green New Deal’s goal of building a smart electrical grid is a good one, as is the idea to retrofit American buildings to have net zero emissions.
Technologies developed in the U.S. need to spread quickly to other countries. All ARPA-E breakthroughs should be freely transferred to other countries, through the offices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or other agencies. Subsidies should be increased for companies that export their emissions-reducing products. The plan should also include offers of favorable trade relations for countries that reduce their use of fossil fuels, as well as tariffs on the carbon content of imported goods.
An alternative Green New Deal should also provide incentives for higher density in urban areas, since sprawl contributes to emissions. It shouldn’t require the decommissioning of nuclear plants. It should also implement a carbon tax, something now missing from the plan. This would encourage factories to reduce carbon output, to encourage air and sea travel to search for lower-carbon alternatives and to address various other sources of emissions.
In addition, an alternative Green New Deal should include proposals to make sure as little as possible of the costs of the transition fall on the economically vulnerable. Government infrastructure and retrofitting projects will naturally create many green jobs. The proceeds of a carbon tax can be rebated to low-income Americans, either as a carbon dividend, or through earned income tax credits, child tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers and income support for the elderly and disabled. These policies combine the goals of fighting climate change and supporting the poor and working class.
In order to sweeten the deal politically, an Alternative Green New Deal should also include some economic policies that aren’t directly related to climate change — but make sure these are things that should be done anyway, and which won’t break the bank. Universal health insurance, which would free employees to move from job to job, as well as giving the government power to negotiate lower health-care prices, should be included. Increased spending on public universities and trade schools in exchange for tuition reductions, and grants to help lower-income students pay for these schools, would help increase educational attainment without being too costly.
Finally, an alternative Green New Deal should involve progressive taxes, both to raise revenue for the spending increases and to let the nation know that the well-off are shouldering more of the burden. Wealth taxes and inheritance taxes are good ideas. Income taxes should also go up, not just on the super rich, but on the affluent and the upper-middle class as well. And most importantly, capital gains and dividends should be treated as ordinary income, which would increase the tax rate actually paid by the wealthy.
This alternative Green New Deal has similarities to Ocasio-Cortez’s version, but also has key differences. By focusing on technological development and international assistance, it would tackle the all-important problem of global emissions. By avoiding huge open-ended commitments like a federal job guarantee or universal basic income, and by including progressive tax increases, it would avoid the threat of excessive budget deficits. Ultimately, this plan would represent the U.S.’s best shot at fighting the looming global menace of climate change while also making the country more egalitarian in a safe and sustainable way. It would be a worthy successor to the original New Deal.
The emphasis should be on climate change while limiting costly new entitlements.
By Noah Smith
February 12, 2019
The planet is in grave danger from climate change. No reasonable person can doubt this fact. Drastic and immediate action is needed to reduce global carbon emissions.
But that doesn’t mean that any sort of drastic action is a good one. The Green New Deal, proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has two big flaws. First, the plan overreaches in its desire to deliver a raft of expensive new entitlements — guaranteed jobs, benefits, health care, housing, education, income and more. If the large deficits required to pay for all of these things ended up harming the economy, it would actually hurt the cause of limiting climate change rather than help it. Second, the plan focuses far too much on the U.S.’s own carbon emissions. The U.S. accounts for only about 14 percent of global carbon output, and that percent is falling every day. The climate change battle will be won or lost in developing countries such as China:
[graph shown in link]
So I propose an alternative Green New Deal, which would focus on actually defeating climate change. Some of the proposals here are included in the Green New Deal resolution; some are not.
The first pillar of an alternative Green New Deal would be green technology. If the U.S. can discover cheap ways of manufacturing cement and concrete without carbon emissions, and of reducing emissions from agriculture, it will give developing countries a way to reduce carbon output without threatening their economic growth. To this end, the U.S. should pour money into research. The budget of ARPA-E, the agency charged with leading this research, should be increased from about $300 million to $30 billion per year.
The second way to move green technology forward is to encourage the scaling of these technologies. As companies build more solar power, batteries, smart grids, low-carbon building retrofit kits and other green technologies, the costs go down. To that end, the government should provide large subsidies to green-energy companies, including solar power, batteries and electric cars, as well as mandating the replacement of fossil-fuel plants with zero-carbon plants.
Infrastructure spending is also important. The original Green New Deal’s goal of building a smart electrical grid is a good one, as is the idea to retrofit American buildings to have net zero emissions.
Technologies developed in the U.S. need to spread quickly to other countries. All ARPA-E breakthroughs should be freely transferred to other countries, through the offices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or other agencies. Subsidies should be increased for companies that export their emissions-reducing products. The plan should also include offers of favorable trade relations for countries that reduce their use of fossil fuels, as well as tariffs on the carbon content of imported goods.
An alternative Green New Deal should also provide incentives for higher density in urban areas, since sprawl contributes to emissions. It shouldn’t require the decommissioning of nuclear plants. It should also implement a carbon tax, something now missing from the plan. This would encourage factories to reduce carbon output, to encourage air and sea travel to search for lower-carbon alternatives and to address various other sources of emissions.
In addition, an alternative Green New Deal should include proposals to make sure as little as possible of the costs of the transition fall on the economically vulnerable. Government infrastructure and retrofitting projects will naturally create many green jobs. The proceeds of a carbon tax can be rebated to low-income Americans, either as a carbon dividend, or through earned income tax credits, child tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers and income support for the elderly and disabled. These policies combine the goals of fighting climate change and supporting the poor and working class.
In order to sweeten the deal politically, an Alternative Green New Deal should also include some economic policies that aren’t directly related to climate change — but make sure these are things that should be done anyway, and which won’t break the bank. Universal health insurance, which would free employees to move from job to job, as well as giving the government power to negotiate lower health-care prices, should be included. Increased spending on public universities and trade schools in exchange for tuition reductions, and grants to help lower-income students pay for these schools, would help increase educational attainment without being too costly.
Finally, an alternative Green New Deal should involve progressive taxes, both to raise revenue for the spending increases and to let the nation know that the well-off are shouldering more of the burden. Wealth taxes and inheritance taxes are good ideas. Income taxes should also go up, not just on the super rich, but on the affluent and the upper-middle class as well. And most importantly, capital gains and dividends should be treated as ordinary income, which would increase the tax rate actually paid by the wealthy.
This alternative Green New Deal has similarities to Ocasio-Cortez’s version, but also has key differences. By focusing on technological development and international assistance, it would tackle the all-important problem of global emissions. By avoiding huge open-ended commitments like a federal job guarantee or universal basic income, and by including progressive tax increases, it would avoid the threat of excessive budget deficits. Ultimately, this plan would represent the U.S.’s best shot at fighting the looming global menace of climate change while also making the country more egalitarian in a safe and sustainable way. It would be a worthy successor to the original New Deal.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I don't think the conservatives in this thread (or Mitch McConnell) are accurately predicting the public's opinion on this, which isn't particularly surprising given how no one on either side saw Trump coming the way he did. People are fed up with how things are going (and have been for years at this point), and are open to hearing ideas on "fixing" things. Trump tapped in to that for the far right wing of the country, and AOC and the new Progressives are tapping into that from the left wing.
The limited polling on a Green New Deal shows wide, bi-partisan support for the general idea. Of course there will be lots of discussion and compromise on what exactly the Green New Deal would be in practice, but this is something that people want to hear ideas on.
A survey from December showed that 81% of registered voters "somewhat" or "strongly" support the following (wording is exact):
In my opinion, the parallels between today and the Great Depression / FDR Progressive era are remarkable. I think the American people are seeking bold solutions to our current dissatisfaction with the world, and I think it is a mistake to think that you'll be able to use a Green New Deal vote as some kind of political bludgeon for campaign ads. All the Dems would have to do is run ads touting the promises of the proposal, based on current polling, they'd likely win the war of ideas, especially given that the GOP is providing no kind of alternative.
The limited polling on a Green New Deal shows wide, bi-partisan support for the general idea. Of course there will be lots of discussion and compromise on what exactly the Green New Deal would be in practice, but this is something that people want to hear ideas on.
A survey from December showed that 81% of registered voters "somewhat" or "strongly" support the following (wording is exact):
Criticism of this particular survey for not disclosing any kind of cost involved with the proposal are valid, but in more recent polling, where cost was specifically addressed, we still show wide margins of support among the younger generations (though a lack of support from older generations). Similar polling on a job guarantee program (which, it seemed, was a controversial piece of the initial proposal among the political elite and conservatives) actually shows even broader support than Green energy/infrastructure programs, with broad support among all generations.
In my opinion, the parallels between today and the Great Depression / FDR Progressive era are remarkable. I think the American people are seeking bold solutions to our current dissatisfaction with the world, and I think it is a mistake to think that you'll be able to use a Green New Deal vote as some kind of political bludgeon for campaign ads. All the Dems would have to do is run ads touting the promises of the proposal, based on current polling, they'd likely win the war of ideas, especially given that the GOP is providing no kind of alternative.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I enjoy actual discussion about this, so thank you, but the history and FDR fanboy in me is angry that this explicitly argues against the Second Bill of Rights parts of the Green New Deal proposal from AOC and company. That is probably my favorite part...
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
AOC turned it into a political liability. Pelosi won't let it come up for a vote, but McConnell wants to get Democrats on record, especially the ones running for president.
This is why it's a bad idea to have a 29 year old whose political career is literally weeks long to be the face of your party.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
That was a good article but it's fallen behind reality. As someone watches all 3 channels, they all now have an equally heavy lean. There's nothing neutral or slight lean about either CNN and MSNBC anymore. I used to watch CNN exclusively and they tried to compensate for their lean in the past. Now they blatantly leave out pertinent facts that would shine favor on conservatives. In the past 2 years since that article was written, Trump has had the same effect on MSNBC and CNN as he's had on Congressional Dems. They don't want to report anything that would make him look good. His jackassery has had the added effect of compromising the integrity of many news outlets.
The only true way to get the full story is to consume many varieties of sources, including ones you don't necessarily agree with. Unfortunately outside of many here, there aren't many who put in the effort to get the full story. People watching either FOX NEWS, CNN, or MSNBC exclusively are basically being brainwashed and it's sad.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Excellent post. I don't watch cable news, but every morning I fire up CNN's website and literally every day the front page is an anti-Trump opinion piece hate fiesta. Like you, I kind of don't even blame CNN for that. Trump is a virus that our system wasn't designed to handle. Our media outlets don't really know how to report on a guy like this, and it's thrown some of them completely off kilter.
Similar threads
