Your video, The Kook, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

while I am absolutely delighted to watch both the democratic and republican parties LOSE their minds over AOC,and watch them bumble and stumble all over themselves to discredit this 29yr old Latina spitfire.

the political establishment continues to miss the plot,because they live in their own tiny,elitist bubbles.

every time they attempt to marginalize her,attack her outright,shame her,belittle her...
her numbers go up.
the republicans try to attack her by exposing her ideas as laughable,but what they are really doing is campaigning for her.
she literally gets more popular every time FOX news has ben shapiro on to "expose" AOC as the "loony left".

and the democrats may actually be MORE afraid of AOC than the republicans!
they are trying to primary her out of her seat,which he has only been in a few weeks.
which has seen AOC's war chest boom with private,small amount,donations.


they (meaning the establishment,corporate lackeys in congress) along with their corporate media stooges.

are doing their best to paint AOC as a "kook" as a "crazy" as somehow not being an actual representative of what normal folk want in a representative.

just like they did with nader,paul,sanders..


but it looks like the American people are finally on to the games of the kleptocrats.

and AOC has become the youngest and most popular congresswoman..ever.


because AOC Is not a kook,or a crazy.

she is whip smart and politically savvy.

and in five minutes she lays out the ease of corruption in our government.


suck a dick trumpters!

*promote

and so are trumps (the kook) thankfully

Trump has sunk political discourse to new lows, I agree. But I think she'd suffer worse slings and arrows than "Pocahontas" no matter who her opponent is. That's the game and it always has been. She's got to "man up" and anticipate a certain amount of mud being slung her way. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, would never be caught unaware by a provoking one-liner like that.

Or as another example, think about Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic primary. From his own party; not yet from archfiend Trump. Sanders' own party called him a kook, didn't take him seriously, and harped on the "socialist" charge that they presumed would be a rallying standard against him for Republicans, etc. But I don't remember him showing any discomfort with that or letting on that it was getting to him.


I really do like Warren, but it is of paramount importance for any Presidential candidate to develop a thick enough skin to weather the smear campaign that is guaranteed to be headed their way. And this small throwaway interview isn't a sign that she can't get there, but it is a sign that she's still got plenty of work to do if she has those aspirations. Based on that, at this point I'd feel better if Sanders was the heir apparent (although that seems very unlikely given the current heads-up-asses state of the DNC). But Warren definitely has plenty of time to get to where she needs to be.

If there was any evidence that this was the mother forcing her son to act like a girl, I'd be on board with you. I don't see any sign of that.

For one, a kid this age isn't likely to be able to maintain a convincing act. He would have broken down and blabbed by now.

For two, if it was the case of a kook mother, I would expect her to have done this with her older son rather than wait for the second one.

You're right. Those signs would only prove that racist assholes are making themselves more known after the vote.

Yeah, who wants those fucking EU regulations enforcing bullshit like safe food, workers, rights?

Christ bob, can you just TRY for once using you goddamn brain? Or do some fucking research.

The irony of you telling me to stop drinking the kook aid is painful.

@Lawdeedaw
i get what you're saying and no,i don't think that makes you a prick.

totally forgot about ron paul's stance of reverting to the gold standard.that would certainly fall into the "kook" category.i had some issues with ron pauls politics but i admired how he was consistent and stuck to his principles (which CANNOT be said about his son).

this is a similar reason why i dig sanders.while i do not agree with everything he proposes and have some issues with his politics as well.the man has been fairly consistent through his career.

which i think we can all agree that we want principled,honest politicians in our government.we can disagree with someones politics and still admire them for being principled and honest people.

ultimately this is about power and who wields that power.maybe i am just biased in cheering for the anti-establishment candidate,because the establishment has proven over the years that they only seek to perpetuate a dysfunctional and corrupt system which serves their needs at the expense of the majority.

so fuck the establishment.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

What's a "kook-a-kewla"?

too many kooks

I think this is a very important point. I watched a movie about the Challenger disaster yesterday with Richard Feynman on the committee. Richard Feynman was some sort of kook, who asked the experts at NASA what was the failure rate of the Challenger. They said there was a 1 in 100,000 chance that a Space Shuttle would fail catastrophically (Destroyed and all Crew Dead). Feynman knew that was "a wish" because that would mean if you launched Space Shuttles every day it would be 274 years until one failed (on average). Furthermore he polled the engineers of the shuttles and their numbers were 1 in 200 some as low as 1 in 50.

You throw numbers at people and a lot of times they don't know what to do with them. How to categorized what they're hearing. And if you throw science at them which specifically NASA was doing to the public to try and confuse them, it takes a brilliant mind such as Feynmans to explain in basic terms what is going on.

The same method to determine whether or not the world is heading for serious ecological collapse is why we are all standing here today. Why our medicines work, why our machines work, why the little rectangles that we gaze at all day bring us the entire world.

If you are curious about this sort of thing, and you come at it with an open mind and work off of a basis of scientific knowledge to understand the world, you will come to the conclusion that global climate change is happening and it's getting very serious. If you come at this with cynicism, or superiority, or especially politics you won't get it and that's on you, not science.

Who crafts the language of the law and the descriptive terminology used to codify offenders? The argument here (see out-dated scrap of guidelines) is when does your average Joe become the "exigent circumstance" and who decides what, when, who, how, and where such a circumstantial decision leading to action should be brought into play....and at that point, what action and where is the agreed-upon line drawn? The justification for a door-to-door in Boston this week did not come from the referenced, " American law of criminal procedure" which is quite possibly, a fluid, up-for-interpretation piece of horseshit.

At face value...Jack-boots in armor going door-to-door with adrenaline pumping leads to fucking chaos or police state, and, sorry men-in-black, there are better ways to looks for kooks. Fuck the po-lice and their newfangled ways of doing their half-assed assignments! The goddamn bomber would have found his own ass in 3 more hours trying to buy tampons to stick in his wounds if half the cops looking for him were on a 3-day-drunk ANYHOW!

Yeah-The fucking police violated rights and used some jihad-teen's actions and their own balls as license, don't care how the law reads.

"Dude! That guy was f'n kooked out man, like he was beyond howling. Like, I dont see any breath in him. You know what I'm saying?"

I really know what you are saying.