Why politics mattered so much to me, and moving on…

I was really obsessed with politics. It was sort of my first true love and passion, but now I think I’ve got the gist of the political climate and the important questions/topics related to it.

I talk a lot about Academia because that’s the world I live in, and I have the most original insights about it. Ultimately Academia matters because it determines the American voting population in 10-20 years, as the students turn into voters. And when Academia, as I’ve seen firsthand and read about, swerves off the highway, people ask me “Why do you care so much”. America’s fate depends on the students that colleges educate, but colleges these days are radicalizing students and making them unfit to make sound arguments… These students determine the culture and ultimately the politics, when parties cowtow to the voters. Colleges are shitty snowglobes full of hatred and idiots, try and shake them as much as you can but they won’t listen. They are entrenched in the world they deserve – boring, stale, hateful, oppressive, etc. The people on the outer rim of the snowglobe understand that there is something seriously wrong in their backyard, but will not escape the matrix without curiosity and due diligence.

But the rest of politics, especially how bad the media has gotten, is incredible to watch. Same with pop culture. It’s insanity what is happening. New york’s play, Kathy Griffin’s beheading stunt, what happened at Evergreen college, a radical bernie supporter SHOOTING a republican congressman. MSM hardly covered what happened at evergreen… and when they covered the shooting, they hardly mentioned his radical leftist or motives. The reason I didn’t write or cover these things is because I wasn’t surprised, at all. My previous writings are being proven true, each day I read the news.

James Comey and Jeff Session testifying before congress and vindicating Trump that this whole Russia thing is a deflection, a conspiracy theory. Comey confirmed he did tell trump on 3 occasions that Trump was not under investigation. He said that a NYT article on the topic was not true. He also said that there was no attempt by Trump to obstruct justice. If you didn’t see those clips, you better question your sources.

Look, it’s still interesting to me. Watching the chaotic snowglobe is fun, but it really gets old and gets me sad sometimes. I’ll still write about it when I feel motivated, but from here on I’m going to explore other questions about life, people, travel, kids, love, psychology, and music.



Doubts about my internship

As a frequent bullshitter back in a high school where everyone slacked and learned the art of BS-ing, I can sense something is amiss in my own psychology lab. A bullshitter knows a bullshitter when he sees one. Flowery language, drawn-out responses, important-sounding ideas, and questionable methodology. It really is impressive that Ryan can take a simple 10 word sentence, and make it the longest sentence you’ll ever hear. But the problem is he’s not really saying anything. This is a fundamental bullshitting-technique, you say a lot of words, fluff it up to make it sound important, and act like you are on the cutting-edge of psych/whatever research. The amount of essays I’ve turned in using techniques like this, is incredible. Most people buy it too.

He has an idea, like analyzing debates and the audience, and then tries to get something meaningful from it. So he doesn’t really care about good science because his hypothesis is “There’s gotta be something there“. Well another core problem, that I sorta steered the conversation of the meeting into, is that people often massage results. When the experiment doesn’t work out, they add more variables and then stretch the analysis to meet their own purposes. Small data sets can prove one thing, then another tries the experiment with another data set and proves the opposite.

They are all aware of these things and we had a talk about this type of thing. It’s in the back of their mind.

So then the topic comes up: what’s good psychology research?

Well surely it’d be repetition. Repeat your experiments with other data sets, and let the data speak for itself. Good experiments have good data and clean results. Little explanation needed.

Then I brought up Daryl Bem, a MIT psychologist who’s high profile forced them to make a very uncomfortable choice.

He proved that people can sense events in the near future, something called Extrasensory perception (ESP). Eight out of the nine experiments he conducted pointed to his hypothesis that ESP is a thing. A thousand patients, perfect methodology, and repetition – Daryl Bem was about to put his career on the line with this paper. So he meticulously proofed it, and then got it published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .  No one could find anything wrong with his methodology, he used repetition and a big data set.

So then what do social psychologists do?

Do they admit that ESP is a real thing – completely ridiculous and improbable – or do they admit that there is something seriously wrong with the methodology that had been used for 50 years by the entire field. Social psychologists don’t want to admit ESP is real but they also don’t want 50 years of research – their field – to be dismissed or undermined. Repetition may not be good science, for whatever absurd reason.

I just have a lot of doubts about the lab I’m working in


Happiness or Truth?

Which would you prefer: Be dissatisfied and be close to the truth or be happy and ignorant? Which do you value more Happiness or Truth?

Being a satisfied fool may be underrated. Everyone says that the point of life is happiness, and that’s the end goal for a large sum of people. I can’t blame them, but always felt like that’s such a shallow existence.

Everyone thinks they know the real, objective truth about the world, but few actually do… The reason being that our psychology just works in the background, and is completely opaque to anyone but ourselves.

I think a lot of the figures we see in politics are satisfied fools, who don’t care to question their beloved beliefs. They are fools only for the reason that they only know their own side of the argument, and don’t care to hear the other. What I am saying is: Nothing ventured nothing gained.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

Socrates is the perfect example because he was so ahead of his time intellectually, yet completely dissatisfied – eventually dying for it. Of course, he’s the one we remember, not the satisfied fools he would argue with on the streets of Athens.

Nothing ventured nothing gained. If Socrates just didn’t care, just lived his life to maximize pleasure, no one would remember his name or his ideas. Being a satisfied fool, means not venturing out of your bubble… Yes you may be happier, but there just is something unbelievably exciting and invigorating about venturing – for me.

Maybe a lot of these satisfied fools are a lot like the bird-in-the-hand-man. They are afraid of venturing and questioning, because they don’t want to lose the bird in their hand. The bird will fly away! So they just stagnate intellectually and refuse to grab at the bushes. What I’m saying is that many are attached to their worldview and ideas, and don’t want to grab for the bushes for fear of feeling stupid or wrong. We’ve all met people like this and seen these figures in politics.

Take a risk and venture. Really try to listen and understand, instead of screeching when another person has a different opinion. Truth is much more worthwhile – everything interesting and exciting comes from it. There’s a whole vibrant, colorful world out there, if you look hard enough.

A small, unknown college just tarnished it’s reputation forever

Evergreen college just hit mainstream as students screamed down a professsor, Bret Weinstein, for refusing to leave campus in a campus-wide day-without-whites. Students had demanded white teachers to leave campus for a day, in order to bring attention to the institutional racism that black students faced. Bret Weistein stood up to this bullying and blatant anti-white racism, in a letter he sent to every professor. The letter was so tame and the reaction of the students was SO disproportionate that it drew attention of millions of Americans on YouTube and social media.


Here’s a video with first-hand footage of what happened at Evergreen. It’s shocking stuff. They cornered the professor in the hallway, and blocked police from entering the main entrance. They also are seen mobbing around this poor old white lady, whose face speaks so much, yelling at her. She cannot believe what went wrong in educating their youth.

The students are angry that the videos became viral online. They shouldn’t take part in behaviors that they would be shameful of.

I hope that the story of Evergreen shows people that something is seriously wrong wtih Academia and the bullshit that professors teach. It’s group insanity that has gotten this bad because of the terribly divisive ideas professors are currently teaching in Academia. I think we have reached a tipping point in America.

When these students realize that they were involved in a witchhunt, solely based onn race, will they take an honest look in the mirror? I don’t think so.

From today on, this small college will never live down this terrible moment. Everyone will think of this moment when Evergreen’s name comes up. And rightfully so. The terrible footage speaks for itself, something is seriously wrong at Evergreen.

Finding out my UGS professor was a neo-marxist

Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer were neo-marxists that came to America in the 1930s to flee Hitler. They set up shop in California, founding The Frankfurt School. The most significant thing to come from the Frankfurt School, something I’ve been taught first-hand, is Critical Theory:

Critical theory (or “social critical theory“)[1] describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2]Martin Jay has stated that the first generation of critical theory is best understood as not promoting a specific philosophical agenda or a specific ideology, but as “a gadfly of other systems”.[3]


Critical Theory an attempt to tear down the social fabric by using all the social sciences; it was an unending criticism of the status quo, adolescent rebellion against all established social rules and norms.

For so long in that introductory course I took called Comparative Values, I was discontent and angry with the status quo. On the discussion board, I was writing and buying into this neo-marxist idea. The professor mentioned critical theory quite a lot, and even quoted the famous Marxists at The Frankfurt School. He even quoted Marx himself a few times. Here are some screenshots I took (students still have access to the discussion board, to revisit

There are pages of posts like this, from the professor:


Two Students responses:


He was constantly telling us that we are a victim of Capitalism. I remember being so angry at Capitalism and what he called Market Culture, that one time I wrote an impassioned response to a video on YouTube. It was just a video about the manufacturing of a pencil.  He was doing what Marcuse and Adorno said was necessary to achieve political ends – using critical theory to get middle-class Americans upset about the system. So you and I are told that we are victims, being oppressed, being determined.

We are told that this nameless, faceless christian white man is oppressing minorities and marginalized groups, at every step of the way.  This is called cultural Marxism. It’s trying to get oppressed people united against a perceived oppressor – their enemy.  Marxism used to be the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeois. Now it’s changed to those without power, overthrowing the powerful. And minority groups, women, and LGBTQ are being told to SMASH THE PATRIARCHY.

Because to Marcuse and the Frankfurt school, the end justified the means – even lies, deception, and violence.

“The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance towards prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed” – Herbert Marcuse

Sounds familiar right? Antifa’s core is ends-justify-the-means, harming innocent Trump supporters is justifiable because they think Trump supporters are oppressive fascists.

It’s an incredible feeling to shake off his terribly bitter view of the world. I remember hearing the undercurrent of nihilism – that we are just a meaningless pawn of the system. “Nihilism, after all, is never a comforting companion”.

That professor is obviously very well-acquainted with the works of the founders of the Frankfurt school.


The self-identified feminist herself, the most outspoken ally they have, Laci Green just posted a video titled “TAKING THE RED PILL?”. She came out of a 3 month break from YouTube where, it seems, she took a crash course on the crazy, anti-speech victim-hood culture that is plaguing America today. She even said that she was surprised, when she reached out to outspoken anti-SJW people, that they were not the monsters she thought they were.

Why is this important? Because her 1.5 million person audience is a lot of millenials and a lot of the social justice types. She was an icon to the feminist, gender-blending types. Now, an iconoclast, Laci Green is a very dangerous dissident to the feminist ideology. The threat she poses is so huge, when she brings on the Milo’s of the YouTube world, that she will take a lot of her social justice, feminist audience with her.


Diversity of Opinion meets Identity Politics

Colleges seem to bend over backwards to get diversity of race and class, but don’t seem to care at all about diversity of opinion. Today’s college is Pluto’s cave; if you want to see truth&reality, you have to escape it.

I used to consider myself a liberal, by default. I would get very annoyed with my dad, who went on his conservative monologues. But him, and a few of my role models growing up, instilled in me a very strong distrust in authority. I always resented the students who would kiss up to the principal – I still do. But for some reason, all throughout my growing up, I identified with liberalism so strongly. Now, I’m a recovering liberal – an apostate of liberalism. What changed?

Liberals don’t respect free speech any more, many want to ban hate speech – meaning views and ideas they don’t like. The fact about hate-speech is that, while most of us can agree on extreme, disgusting forms of hate-speech, no one has been able to clearly define or demarcate a boundary for it and it’s been 28 years since Doe vs University of Michigan.

“The big danger is that, in the name of stopping bigots, one may end up stopping all criticism.” – Anthony Lewis in Freedom for the Thought that We Hate

I grew up in the mid-2000’s, a time where political correctness took a break. It was a period where VICE, Bill Maher’s show Politically Incorrect, Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Breitbart and Dave Chapelle were able to joke freely and discuss anything. But in the last 5 years, Political Correctness has gotten far far worse.

What many have noticed is that, recently, liberals have been responding to conservative arguments with slurs. “That’s racist” or “You’re a bigot!“. Or something along the lines of “Check your privilege!” or “No platform for fascists!”. These are not counter-arguments, they are slurs that show the listener has tuned the speaker out. If their arguments are so bad – so out of touch – then why not just argue against them with a superior counter-argument so they learn! Jonathon Haidt, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Breitbart, Milo, Bill Maher, Charles Murray, Gavin Mcinnes – nearly everyone remotely questioning the status quo experiences this. It means one thing: they are right. It’s vindicating to hear, because liberals show their weak cards by resorting to slurs. And yes, it does happen with conservatives too, but usually slurs like “snowflake” or “libtard” which are not nearly as bad and don’t hold the same weight as liberal slurs.


In a very influential piece by Haidt that everyone should read, Haidt argues that Colleges are coddling students. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, lack of diversity of opinion – students are being infantilized. It’s a crying shame because students ought to be exposed to all points of view and learn to combat them. A battleground of ideas, strengthens one’s conviction or exposes one to something they need or want to hear. Instead, they are taught bullshit terminology like “Intersectionality” and conservative, centrist or libertarian voices are silent because they don’t want to speak up. Self-censorship is the most effective form of censorship, because you control people and mainstream opinion by making people afraid to speak their piece.

This brings me to the point of this essay: Diversity of Opinion meets Identity politics, which will win?

Because what schools, what pop culture, what modern art, and what MSM preaches – at it’s core – is identity politics. It’s telling people to vote in line with the group that they belong to. African Americans better vote Democrat because ‘white privelege’ and ‘systemic oppression’. LGBTQ better vote Democrat because republicans are homophobic or don’t care about trans people. Mexicans better vote Democrat because Trump hates mexicans. Women better vote Democrat because Trump doesn’t respect women.

What is fails to account for is that people are individuals and there is vast diversity of opinion within each group. Caitlyn Jenner voted Trump, but is trans – her fans are astonished that she isn’t a single issue voter and has more dimensions to her political beliefs.

But the main problem with identity politics, as we’ve seen, is that it pits groups against each other. It pits our country against itself. They are exaggerating issues, or lying to voters with things like the wage-gap or white-privelege. So diversity of opinion suddenly becomes meaningless – many democrats view trump-supporters as enemies and vice versa. They don’t listen to each other or deliberate.

America has to choose which one it wants, and one leads down a much more dangerous path than the other: Diversity of Opinion or Identity Politics.

Nietzsche’s parable: Today’s liberalism has ‘will to power’ written all over it

Hidden ambitions, hatred, repressed envy, revenge, and power-dynamics – politics and psychology go hand in hand. It’s very strange to read Nietzsche’s parable below, because it seems to have come true…

‘Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the
tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!

There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.

Thus I speak to you in a parable — you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of the your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. “What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge” — thus they speak to each other. “We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not” — thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. “And ‘will to equality’ shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!”

You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy — perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers — erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.
— Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Nietzsche’s parable is being played out in every direction I look. Hatred and revenge reveal an unbelievable truth behind the psychology behind today’s liberalism: it’s about elevating status and gaining power. And they do it all because of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’, but sometimes show their fangs and true character. Internet witch-hunts, economic intimidation, vile language and righteous indignation. The desire for power, and destruction of dissidents, is reflected in the politicized terms they use very frequently: ‘Hate-speech’, ‘Intersectionality’, and ‘White privilege’ are illegitimate terms used for political gain and power.

‘Hate-speech’ is used to shut down those with unfashionable views – views from right-wing commentators, psychologists and skeptics that question mainstream narratives and opinions. It’s over-used to label those with views they don’t like or agree with as ‘spreading hate’. ‘Intersectionality’ means that all these marginalized groups suffer from a common oppression, known as the “White male patriarchy”.  It’s a term used to try and gain influence or power, by uniting marginalized groups against a perceived common enemy. ‘White privilege’ reeks of the same sort of power-dynamics, it’s used to stop white people from having an opinion (even famous psychologists like Jonathon Haidt get told that their research and opinions are them ‘protecting their privilege’). When you look at the median incomes of different groups of people, it becomes obvious that ‘white privilege’ has no legitimacy.

In the name of equality and tolerance, we are seeing the rise of a tyrannical secular liberalism. They demonize white working class men, pit groups against each other, make the Right out to be enemies and oppressors, hate crimes uncovered as hoaxes left and right, they intimidate and they bully.

The important thing to note are that a lot of this unconscious behavior. Man seeks power and man is tribal. The media and the left is convinced that the other half are dangerous fascists or plain idiots that need to be ‘enlightened’. The white working class people, ‘white trash’, ‘hillbillies’ and ‘rednecks’ are deplorable’s. And now in colleges, it’s pushing very dangerous ideas that, Haidt says, enhances our tribal instincts (meaning that humans instinctively join up and teams to fight other teams) because these ideas pit groups against each other. The scary part is that when tribal instincts are enhanced, people stop being able to talk and deliberate because they view the other side as ‘enemies’ that need to be destroyed. We see this all over the place in the political arena today. We’ve seen this story before in history and I don’t think I need to tell you that this story ends very very badly.

The main problem we are facing is that there is no plurality of opinion. There’s no diversity of opinion. Social Media, Mainstream Media, and Colleges(profs and students) are all overwhelmingly liberal. And students who have opposing viewpoints keep their mouth shut because of the hateful, condescending PC police on social media and within colleges.  So liberal college students are never made aware of the arguments against their own views – it’s an echo chamber. It’s indoctrination. That’s why ex-liberals compare it to being redpilled.

Nietzsche’s warning, repeated:

“We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not” — thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. “And ‘will to equality’ shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!”

You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy — perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers — erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

The most interesting article I’ve read all year, if you’re a leftist you ought to read this: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/07/ten_reasons_i_am_no_longer_a_leftist.html

Antifa recap: Who are the real fascists?

A group called Antifa (short for antifascists) is a group making headlines because they, in the name of stopping fascists and intolerance, end up becoming the exact thing they set out to stop. It’s the ultimate irony, although completely opaque to them. They end up damaging their own cause and are really a case study of extreme social justice combined with anti-trump-hysteria gone mad.

But when I first heard of them – after the Milo-Berkeley controversy where they were beating up an unconscious man, smashing windows, beating women with poles, and starting fires in response to a small talk Milo was giving on cultural appropriation – I asked myself, wait a minute, who are the fascists they aim to stop? The answer: Trump and his supporters. That should worry you. Because, to them, in the name of stopping fascism, violence is permissible in stopping fascists from organizing. Then the rest makes sense, they are so convinced that Milo is a nazi trying to ‘incite violence’ with ‘hate speech’, that they believe it necessary to stop him by using any means necessary.

So this is the disillusioned world they live in. And colleges recently have showed just how committed they are to having right-wing speakers on college campuses – minimal commitment to try and have all points of view on campus. In response to what is known as the Heckler’s veto – antifa’s threats – they cave almost immediately because they don’t respect the first amendment or understand it. The first amendment is not just the right to speak freely, it’s the right for the listener to hear the speech they want to hear. So if a group of republicans on college campus, invite a conservative speaker, it’s their right to hear that speaker and be able to interact with them. Why? Because freedom of speech affords everyone the ability to sift through all information and opinions – even hateful ones. My point is that, their views never come into question because conservative voices are not heard on today’s college campuses. Their disillusioned reality won’t ever be remedied until they learn to question it for themselves- it’s a bubble here.

So why is it that even the soft, calm conservative speakers are constantly being accused of hate-speech by college liberals?  The answer is obvious: the term hate-speech, as it is commonly used, is a political term used to censor opinions that the left doesn’t want to hear. Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Milo are, of course, not hateful fascists engaging in hate-speech. They just have an unfashionable view, and it’s a view that is so dangerous to the left’s narrative that they try to shut it out from the political arena.

Furthermore, if your version of events at Berkeley-round-two on April 15th is that Trump supporters attacked the helpless anarchists, then you better check your sources. New York Times and CBS, lied about the chain of events. TYT did the same thing.

The truth is that, Lauren Southern and a bunch of other right-wing speakers hosted a Free Speech Rally, where they would give talks near Berkeley. Antifa showed up with pepper spray, masks, rocks, M-80 firecrackers, and glass bottles to try and shut down the fascist, alt-right event. They were looking for a fight, and they got a fair one this time. Trump supporters were sick of taking the high road, and won because they aren’t 140 pound vegans who eat tofu. The girl who got punched in the face, boasted on Facebook about “taking 100 nazi scalps” and was seen with a beer bottle intending to smash it on someone. Antifa ran like hell, and were eventually pushed back.

Same thing happened at Auburn, TX on April 18th when Richard Spencer was meant to speak there, minus the violence since Antifa was outnumbered. Right wing people are standing up to their intimidation tactics, and antifa is left with nothing to say.

Recently here at UT, antifa vandalized multiple frats housed and had this to say about it: statement. On one of the houses they vandalized with the words: “Kill Frat Boys”.

Here’s parts of their statement:

Let us make racists, frat bros, and the administration afraid again—afraid of students, afraid of the marginalized and harassed, afraid of the exploited and excluded.

In the midst of resurgent fascism and ongoing colonial legacies, we must become the unruly, improper, unrespectable “barbarians at the gates.”

To the fraternities and University: Prepare yourselves. We are at your gates. Your walls will fall. And you will be sacked.

In the name of tolerance and compassion, they become the most intolerant, hateful self-described barbarians. It’s tribalism, cultural marxism. Every Queer studies, Woman studies, or African studies course pits people against each other by teaching them over-exaggerated lies. The essence of cultural marxism: oppressed vs oppressor. Social justice teaches that we live in a terribly racist and oppressive world. Problems are fabricated or exaggerated with intelligent-sounding phrases (intersectionality) but really, they are handicapping a group of already-stupid college students. Now, they say that everything Jonathon Haidt, the most famous&interesting psychologist and liberal professor at NYU, has to say is him trying to “protect his privelege” because he is white. Instead of challenging his arguments and concerns about university education, they use slurs and non-arguments because they live in a world where everyone white and non-oppressed can’t have an opinion due to “white privelege”.

That’s a recap of the group unironically named “Antifascists”.


I’ll leave it to you then: Who are the real fascists?

Maxine Waters: Affirmative Reaction

Maxine Waters, in the above interview, responds to the question (at 1:35) “Should we wait to call for impeachment until we have the answers to that question [russian collusion]?” by saying “Well I have not called for impeachment…”. MSNBC responds by fact checking her and showing the tweet! Good stuff to that MSNBC host for not wanting to impeach a president until enough evidence is handy.

This is a woman who finally got called out on her shit and responds by saying “I never did that”.  Yet she is on video  at the #taxmarch 3 days ago starting the chant “IMPEACH 45”. She ends that speach by saying “Ladies and Gentlement, My Millenials, Stay Woke!”.

She is quite possibly the most dense woman I have ever see -; Seeing her speeches, her interviews and her virtue-signaling tweets for the past 6 months is maddening. She doesn’t do her homework on subjects she speaks on, and has the most annoying, self-righteous tone possible at protests and events. Her shit-for-brain response to an honest, well-reasoned question was to deny something no one thought she would deny. Why is this woman in Congress?