Deep dive from the Washington Post. It's a fabricated persona, recognizing an opportunity in the electorate. Her childhood and ethnicity are nothing like what she claims https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/10/anna-paulina-luna-republican-biography/
So she falsely claimed to be Jewish when her grandfather actually fought for the Nazis? These people.
Among other things. And of course, there are such instances, and by all accounts, her grandfather was not antisemitic, but was drafted. But she made up a whole lot. Give her credit for correctly, recognizing what people wanted and re-creating herself to give them what they think they want. But it’s still false. And it’s damaging to the electorate social fabric, because it validates their perceptions of victimhood
Unlike George Santos she still has some redeeming qualities. When the photos were taken she still went by the name, Anna Mayerhofer. Apparently she decided to change her last name to Luna for political purposes because it sounded more Hispanic.
There is no doubt her beauty helped her, and it wouldn’t be the first time. Attractive people of all genders get many benefits. But I’ve never been able to figure out if she’s really very capable or intelligent. There are plenty of very attractive people who made a big in a visual medium, but who were also very capable and brilliant. The Washington Post also profiled Mina Kimes yesterday. A lovely woman, but extremely brilliant and funny, and who really has never tried to leverage her appearance, as far as I can tell. Laura Rutledge is on with her, and is obviously very beautiful, but has also worked hard, is capable, and deserves to be taken seriously. It’s easy to underestimate beautiful people. Sometimes they are also very capable and not looking to make it on looks alone. But I can’t tell that our recent elected congresswomen has qualities other than her appearance and her ability to recognize a political opportunity for persona creation. So far, I haven’t seen any reason to take her statements seriously as the product of any real deliberation.
I've been amazed how they have managed to capture the lower-middle class and gotten them to consistently vote against their own self interest.
Its pretty easy when there isn't anyone that can meet their interests or deliver anything for them. Your assumption is there is someone out there that can deliver the goods on their self-interest and they vote against it. Doubt they see it that way.
It's a very complex issue, but in terms of delivering economically, there is a substantial difference between the parties. But self-identification and validation also obviously impact voting behavior, especially when there's the perception that there isn't that big a difference
I don't believe they are. They're voting for their own interests. They simply value things differently than we do.
There isnt as much of a difference as you think in the way it actually impacts people in the status quo. You can say infrastructure bill or whatever, but thats an abstraction for most people. The child tax credit the Dems let expire, that was literally something people could tangibly see. They also see it when it goes away, and they have less money in the bank. So then the argument basically becomes "well if you vote for more Democrats and the Joe Manchins of the world are irrelevant then maybe eventually you will get nice things." Not particularly inspiring, and you are asking people to basically vote for nothing in the short term.
This is funny. She says she didn't have a gun when she was in Missouri (her roommate says they did have guns), implying that gun control was 'pushed' in Missouri. And we have a thread going right now about kids being allowed to open carry in Missouri. “When I was stationed in Missouri, I had someone that broke into my house,” Luna told reporters at her victory party on election night. “I didn’t have a firearm. It wasn’t until I got stationed in Florida that I got my concealed carry. So I have lived in circumstances and in states where gun control was pushed.” Brooks said that at the time of the break-in, both she and Luna had guns in the apartment that were given to them by Brooks’s father.
This is beyond ridiculous. Because 1 Dem senator (Manchin, Pub in disguise) wouldn't go along with it, it is the Dem's fault, and not the 50 Pub senator's who wouldn't go along with it.
