Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 07-24-2018, 02:52 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I wouldn't expect a member of congress to be fully knowledgeable about all of those topics, I can hope that they would have staff that are.

However, I do expect a recent economics grad to be knowledgeable about how the job numbers are created. I can't imagine any decent economics program that doesn't require at least one class in labor economics. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't also covered in an intermediate macroeconomics class as well, especially given all the lying and moving the goalposts that Trump, Jack Welch, and some of the other conservative clowns used to do during the Obama administration.
Maybe her professors were too busy working 70 hours a week at multiple jobs.
  #302  
Old 07-24-2018, 03:30 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,302
If they we're adjuncts or grad students, probably.
  #303  
Old 07-24-2018, 04:29 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Shouldn't a likely member of Congress already know that?
I endorse this response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
How about inflation, GDP, literacy and productivity rates? Shouldn't a likely candidate know how those numbers are crunched? And surely we all expect them to know basic accounting methods, passing the budget being one of their most important jobs. And of course we should expect a decent grounding in Constitutional law, they're passing laws after all

Would you say any of those qualifications are less important than employment level calculations?
I'll add: certainly a voter can plausibly decide he WANTS his Congressional rep to already know any or all these things.

But I once watched a Congressman from Georgia reveal that he believed islands could tip over if enough unbalanced weight in the form of military equipment and people landed on one side of the island. So, no, I don't think there's any rule that a representative MUST know any set of things.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-24-2018 at 04:33 PM.
  #304  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:29 AM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,045
So, it looks like AOC doesn’t have the magic touch with most of her candidates losing last night.
  #305  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:40 AM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
So, it looks like AOC doesn’t have the magic touch with most of her candidates losing last night.
Her candidate in MO 1st actually got 37% of the vote against a well-entrenched incumbent, which is probably the best any primary opponent has ever done.
  #306  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Her candidate in MO 1st actually got 37% of the vote against a well-entrenched incumbent, which is probably the best any primary opponent has ever done.
Well, no. The subject of this thread beat an entrenched incumbent.

One of her other favs lost by only 2000 votes, to a openly LGBTQ Native American woman. That's probably scary for dalej42.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-house-primary
  #307  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:44 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
“Pants on Fire”

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-counts-abou/

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment
I used to think politfact was a good source but... did anyone actually read the article? In particular, they rebut her claim that people are working "60, 70, 80 hours per week" by straight up ignoring the "60" entirely, then arbitrarily deciding that the only way someone could work 70 to 80 hours per week is if they have two full time jobs, that is they claim it's not possible to work that much with one full-time job (they don't even list it as a possiblity), two part time jobs, or one full-time and one part-time job though they don't justify the claim, and then conclude that her claim is false. I've worked 60 hours a week on one full-time job before, so I really have no idea why they're asserting that the only way to work 70-80 hours in a week is with two full-time jobs. And I think I strained an eye muscle when the article claimed that working long hours is a good thing for employees.

I don't think I'll actually trust politifact articles after seeing that, they're calling her 'wrong' because they made a counterfactual declaration and ignored 1/3 of the numbers that she stated.

Last edited by Pantastic; 08-08-2018 at 12:47 PM.
  #308  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:04 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, no. The subject of this thread beat an entrenched incumbent.

One of her other favs lost by only 2000 votes, to a openly LGBTQ Native American woman. That's probably scary for dalej42.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-house-primary
Why would it be scary? I would have voted for Davids if I lived in the district.
  #309  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Why would it be scary? I would have voted for Davids if I lived in the district.
Oh? Why?
  #310  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:23 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneRhino View Post
She obviously has the right scared. Otherwise they would not be spending so much time trying to take her down. I would love to see more D's willing to defend their vision.
The right is not scared of AOC at all. They talk about her so much because she's easy to paint as the future of the democratic party. Liberal is not nearly as much of a dirty word as Socialist. The more they talk about her, the more they fire up the base. She's good for Republicans.
  #311  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:45 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Liberal is not nearly as much of a dirty word as Socialist.
Especially if it's combined with female and brown, with a non-Northern-European name.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-08-2018 at 01:45 PM.
  #312  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:54 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Especially if it's combined with female and brown, with a non-Northern-European name.
Considering that probably makes her easier to tie into Venezuelan socialism, it probably doesn't hurt.
  #313  
Old 08-08-2018, 02:46 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I used to think politfact was a good source but... did anyone actually read the article? In particular, they rebut her claim that people are working "60, 70, 80 hours per week" by straight up ignoring the "60" entirely, then arbitrarily deciding that the only way someone could work 70 to 80 hours per week is if they have two full time jobs, that is they claim it's not possible to work that much with one full-time job (they don't even list it as a possiblity), two part time jobs, or one full-time and one part-time job though they don't justify the claim, and then conclude that her claim is false. I've worked 60 hours a week on one full-time job before, so I really have no idea why they're asserting that the only way to work 70-80 hours in a week is with two full-time jobs. And I think I strained an eye muscle when the article claimed that working long hours is a good thing for employees.

I don't think I'll actually trust politifact articles after seeing that, they're calling her 'wrong' because they made a counterfactual declaration and ignored 1/3 of the numbers that she stated.
She's the one who wrote that "everyone has two jobs." But yes, they could have looked at single-job workers or all workers. AFAIK BLS does not publish these data but Gallup does have polls (I'd prefer BLS ATUS but too bad for me) reporting 60+ at 16%.

Regardless, "unemployment is low because" of reasons that have little to do with people working multiple jobs or long hours.

Working long hours is "good" in the sense that people who work longer are typically paid more. Of course everyone values their time differently so YMMV.

ETA survey link https://news.gallup.com/poll/1720/work-work-place.aspx

Last edited by Ruken; 08-08-2018 at 02:50 PM.
  #314  
Old 08-08-2018, 03:23 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,290
Social Democrat Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim, won the MI-13 Democratic primary yesterday.
  #315  
Old 08-08-2018, 03:52 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,045
What really irks me about AOC’s unemployment claims is that she should really know better. AOC graduated from Boston University in 2011, so her college years would have coincided with the Great Recession and she studied economics.

It used to drive me crazy during the Obama years when every time the unemployment rate was reported, conservative commentators would move the goalposts and use smoke and mirrors. What about U6? What about Labor Force Participation rate? They’d cling to anything to try to convince people that the released number wasn’t real.

And, of course, others would just invent conspiracy theories and claim Obama is cooling the books.
  #316  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:05 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
She's the one who wrote that "everyone has two jobs." But yes, they could have looked at single-job workers or all workers. AFAIK BLS does not publish these data but Gallup does have polls (I'd prefer BLS ATUS but too bad for me) reporting 60+ at 16%.
I don't understand this response. The politifacts article says that she's wrong on multiple counts, but fails to show that she's wrong on anything but the two jobs claim. Like I pointed out, the article simply drops the 60% from her claim in their discussion, and asserts that her claim is clearly wrong because only people who work two full time jobs could work the number of hours that they adjusted her figure to. If you have to ignore 1/3 of the numbers that a person actually said and assert something that is obviously not true, then you haven't actually refuted what someone said, regardless of whether what they said is true or not. Using such awful methodology on a statement that should be easy to refute makes me question the integrity of anything they post.
  #317  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:47 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, no. The subject of this thread beat an entrenched incumbent.
I didn't express myself clearly. I was referring only to the MO 1st incumbent and his challengers.
  #318  
Old 08-08-2018, 05:14 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
So, it looks like AOC doesn’t have the magic touch with most of her candidates losing last night.
I don't think anyone here made the claim that she has a magic touch, or any similar claim for that matter. I probably disagree with her on all sorts of things, but I don't see the value in ridiculing her for taking a principled stand.
  #319  
Old 08-08-2018, 05:26 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I don't understand this response.
I will not contest the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The politifacts article says that she's wrong on multiple counts, but fails to show that she's wrong on anything but the two jobs claim.
1) Everyone has two jobs. False. Discussed in the article.
2) Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. False because (1) is false. But even if (1) were true, (2) would be false because that's not how unemployment works. This is discussed in the article.
3) People are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week. False, for the most part, as I have shown, but not well supported by the article. Only true in the sense that at least two people are working a lot.
4) Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family. False, because even if (3) were true, unemployment doesn't work that way. Not directly addressed.

So I count at least two. And that's only if you don't interpret her statement as "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs; they (the multijobholders) are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week." Which is exactly how I interpreted her statement, and in which case 1, 2, and 3 are covered just fine in the article.

As for trusting Politifact, I'd trust them about as much as any secondary analysis of BLS statistics. Which is not at all. Those stats are there for you to crunch yourself. Use them or EPI or AEI or whomever as your starting point. In this case, Politifact explained why they reached their conclusion and that lets you do a better job yourself (or let someone else do it for you since you apparently couldn't be bothered in this case.) And any slip-up they may have made here doesn't change the conclusion: "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family" is incorrect on multiple counts.

Last edited by Ruken; 08-08-2018 at 05:26 PM.
  #320  
Old 08-08-2018, 07:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't think anyone here made the claim that she has a magic touch, or any similar claim for that matter. I probably disagree with her on all sorts of things, but I don't see the value in ridiculing her for taking a principled stand.
I think the ridicule is not aimed at any "principled stand" but at hubris and the silliness of some of the pundit class who put forth her win in the Bronx as some bellwether for the Democratic party and the country as wholes.


Not sure how much any endorsement really means or how many votes an endorsement and a supportive speech or two deliver in any case ... but the theory she has promoted that there is a "movement" afoot about to sweep across the heartland as new voices speak on their version of advocacy for working Americans, that the Duckworths and her ilk who believe that far left positions won't prevail in the Midwest are very mistaken, did not get great support last night. That may inform some for the next general election.

Those who believe that the hard progressive perspective is the way forward for America are a minority of those who vote as Democrats. There will be individual districts for which those candidates fit the voters the best, but across the country, not too many.

Which does not mean that her fighting the fight is wrong ... argue the case and win hearts and minds over time. Just don't (intentionally or unintentionally) work to elect the GOP candidate in the process.
  #321  
Old 08-08-2018, 08:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't think anyone here made the claim that she has a magic touch, or any similar claim for that matter. I probably disagree with her on all sorts of things, but I don't see the value in ridiculing her for taking a principled stand.
It's called gloating. He doesn't need a lot of foundation for it when those darn bomb throwers threaten to upset his Democratic Pary.
  #322  
Old 08-09-2018, 06:32 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Working long hours is "good" in the sense that people who work longer are typically paid more.
Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC's?
  #323  
Old 08-09-2018, 07:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC's?
Given that the most minimal level of scrutiny applied to AOC's statement on this showed it to be false, I would.

For most individuals more hours worked leads to greater pay than working fewer hours does. Is that verifiably false with minimal evaluation, like AOC's statement was?

Within a job level those who work more hours usually get paid more than those who do not. Is that verifiably false?

The top-level for compensation in a company is often the CEO level and they work more hours per week than does the typical worker. That one is even verifiably true, over 58 hours per week compared to the average overworked worker's 47 hours per week. Many lower level executives are putting in 72 hours per week.




Do too many work too hard in this country for what is still not a livable wage? I'd say yes. Is income and more so wealth inequality increasing in this country and is that a real and serious problem? I'd say yes.

Is making false statements good advocacy? I'd say no.
  #324  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:07 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,671
I know people that work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. But they usually don’t have two real jobs, the scheduling is too difficult. Usually it’s a full-time job + a “hustle” — they clean houses or do handyman work on the evenings and weekends. Or they drive for a car service or collect recyclable cans and bottles. Or they do hair or give massages out of their homes. But a lot of people are working, a lot.

I’m not in AOC’s district but most of my neighborhood is, I’m a half block from the dividing line. It’s an incredibly diverse district - in addition to low income and working class neighborhoods in the Bronx and Queens, it encompasses several affluent and mostly white neighborhoods.
  #325  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:38 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,104
Long hours are also common for small-business owners.
  #326  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:10 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
3) People are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week. False, for the most part, as I have shown, but not well supported by the article. Only true in the sense that at least two people are working a lot.
"Not well supported" is crap when the article UTTERLY FAILS to refute this claim."Not well supported" might be appropriate if I was pointing out that the 'everyone' is not meant literally, that they're using nationwide statistics and not statistics for her district (which is presumably the people she's talking about), or that BLS statitstics don't include a lot of things as "working" that actually are. But arbitrarily ignoring the actual range of hours that she said (changing 60, 70, 80 to 70, 80) and making a blatantly false claim (that one has to have two full-time jobs to work that many hours) is way beyond "not well supported" and into "they changed her statement and just made up some blatantly false nonsense".

All the stuff you posted disputing the validity of her claim is irrelevant, because I'm not disputing that her statement is incorrect. I'm saying that the politifacts article is completely wrong and blatantly dishonest in multiple ways, and that the article actually failed in what should be a fairly simple mission to refute her claims.
  #327  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:40 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I think the ridicule is not aimed at any "principled stand" but at hubris and the silliness of some of the pundit class who put forth her win in the Bronx as some bellwether for the Democratic party and the country as wholes.

It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is.

IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that.
  #328  
Old 08-09-2018, 01:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,390
AOC has correctly identified many of our economic problems, but she misses the mark with specific details and facts, which damages her credibility. The lesson she needs to learn going forward is that she needs to go beyond slogans and do her homework before she agrees to do interviews.

I'm still a fan, but she has a few things to learn before she goes big league.
  #329  
Old 08-09-2018, 01:24 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is.

IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that.
I would rather see her focus on winning her congressional district and spreading her influence locally first. She won a stunning upset in a primary race, but she still doesn't have political power yet. She needs that before she's going to be taken as seriously as she'd like to be taken.
  #330  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:21 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I used to think politfact was a good source but... did anyone actually read the article? In particular, they rebut her claim that people are working "60, 70, 80 hours per week" by straight up ignoring the "60" entirely, then arbitrarily deciding that the only way someone could work 70 to 80 hours per week is if they have two full time jobs, that is they claim it's not possible to work that much with one full-time job (they don't even list it as a possiblity), two part time jobs, or one full-time and one part-time job though they don't justify the claim, and then conclude that her claim is false. I've worked 60 hours a week on one full-time job before, so I really have no idea why they're asserting that the only way to work 70-80 hours in a week is with two full-time jobs. And I think I strained an eye muscle when the article claimed that working long hours is a good thing for employees.

I don't think I'll actually trust politifact articles after seeing that, they're calling her 'wrong' because they made a counterfactual declaration and ignored 1/3 of the numbers that she stated.
Ha. I've done 80 hour weeks working at one job. Not year round, but for a couple of months at a stretch. 60 hour weeks were pretty routine for me. I once worked from December 26 through February 24 at least 12 (sometimes 16) hours a day, every day. (Yes, including New Years Day) Collapsed on the floor at the end of that. Took a cab home and a three day weekend off. Came back the following Monday and restricted myself to only 10 hours a day, six days a week.
  #331  
Old 08-09-2018, 06:22 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,045
She’s still crowing on Twitter, conveniently forgetting that most of the candidates she campaigned for lost. And, I still remember her claims that since Bernie won the tiny Kansas caucus, it’s a sure sign that the Midwest/Plains is eager to elect Democratic socialists.

https://twitter.com/ocasio2018/statu...595133440?s=21
  #332  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:09 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
She’s still crowing on Twitter, conveniently forgetting that most of the candidates she campaigned for lost. And, I still remember her claims that since Bernie won the tiny Kansas caucus, it’s a sure sign that the Midwest/Plains is eager to elect Democratic socialists.

https://twitter.com/ocasio2018/statu...595133440?s=21
You mean she's still doing good things for the party and inspiring lots of young progressives? Great for the future of the Democratic party! Go AOC!
  #333  
Old 08-10-2018, 06:01 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is.

IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that.
I can agree with this. (Although the being willing to be thrown into the role, embracing it with gusto, is the hubris...)

And a somewhat reasonable POV in today's NYT on the meaningful wins the progressives had the other night and what they are doing right: pragmatic wins at the more local race base of the system, such as at the prosecutor and DA levels.
  #334  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:41 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
AOC has correctly identified many of our economic problems, but she misses the mark with specific details and facts, which damages her credibility. The lesson she needs to learn going forward is that she needs to go beyond slogans and do her homework before she agrees to do interviews.

I'm still a fan, but she has a few things to learn before she goes big league.
I don't know that using routine political rhetoric actually damages her postion in any meaningful way; people like the dude writing the politifacts article, who believes that 80-hour weeks are good for employees, are not going to accept her message in the first place, and people that aren't taking nitpicking to excessive levels are not going to be bothered by the fact that the statement is, if interpreted literally, not actually true.

The condescending stuff like "the lesson she needs to learn going forward" doesn't actually appear to be grounded in actual fact; people don't generally get elected to office by making technically correct statements. Instead, broad statements that speak to people's experience and that describe a condition that people are familiar with, even if its not as universal as the statement makes it out to be, tend to work much better at winning elections.

We could apply 'accuracy' critique to Trump's speeches and point out that he still managed to get elected, but he's... not exactly respected. Instead, look at what happens if one applies the same standard of examination to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inaugrial speech. You can make criticisms that it's factually incorrect in many places, but it's clearly not actually striving for simple factual accuracy, but instead is speaking about issues in broad terms. Certainly no one is going to claim that it wasn't a moving speech, or that FDR was not a validly successful politician! And yet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDR
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
People had to fear hunger, disease, crime, riots, racially charged violence, and a host of things other than 'fear itself'. Obviously Mr Roosevelt needs to learn a few things before he goes to the big leagues!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDR
They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
X% of the people in high finance referred to by FDR held University degrees, and Y% of them included courses on classical history that covered historical governance courses. Also, only Z number of them are blind, the vast majority of them have either normal vision or vision easily corrected by glasses. Clearly Mr. Roosevelt needs to verify his facts before spouting off!
  #335  
Old 08-10-2018, 11:16 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
...people that aren't taking nitpicking to excessive levels are not going to be bothered by the fact that the statement is, if interpreted literally, not actually true...
I don't think asking if something is true or not is excessive, or nitpicking. YM obviously V.

Regards,
Shodan
  #336  
Old 08-10-2018, 11:37 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC's?
I'd like to see you try.
  #337  
Old 08-10-2018, 11:52 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm saying that the politifacts article is completely wrong
If the article is completely wrong then the following must be incorrect:
Quote:
"Everyone has two jobs"

The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of how many people work two jobs rather than just one.

Over the past 12 months, the number of multiple job holders has ranged between 6 million and 7 million. That compares to more than 148 million Americans who are employed in a single job.

So by the official statistics, multiple job holders account for a tiny fraction of American workers.

And this percentage isn’t high by historical standards.

The percentage has moved in a pretty narrow band — 4.7 percent to 5.2 percent — during the recovery from the Great Recession. That range is actually below where it was between 1994 and the Great Recession. In fact, the percentage was at its highest (as high as 6.5 percent) during the peak of the 1990s boom.
Please let us know why you think that's completely wrong.
  #338  
Old 08-10-2018, 11:53 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't think asking if something is true or not is excessive, or nitpicking. YM obviously V.
So you think that criticism of FDR's speech in the style that I gave is not excessive, nitpicking, or otherwise unreasonable? YM obviously V.

Reading the Dope is like peeking into bizarro-world sometime. "If you want to play in the big leagues as a politician, you're going to have to make only statements that are true under nitpicking scrutiny, hyperbole, metaphor, and other figures of speech are right out!" is just not advice I'd expect to see, especially after the last presidential election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
If the article is completely wrong then the following must be incorrect
My bad for using ordinary English on this board. (Not really).

Last edited by Pantastic; 08-10-2018 at 11:55 AM.
  #339  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:11 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDR
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
People had to fear hunger, disease, crime, riots, racially charged violence, and a host of things other than 'fear itself'. Obviously Mr Roosevelt needs to learn a few things before he goes to the big leagues!
An inspirational speech where a person is stating an opinion (it is my belief) or crafting a vision for the future is quite different from giving an interview to a reporter about the current state of affairs. To nit pick FDR like that is to miss the point of the speech entirely. Not at all the same as AOC's interview where she is talking about the current state of affairs. She made a mistake, and should just correct it, learn and move on. No big deal.

Last edited by John Mace; 08-10-2018 at 12:12 PM.
  #340  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:10 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,245
How should she correct it?
  #341  
Old 08-11-2018, 07:03 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
An inspirational speech where a person is stating an opinion (it is my belief) or crafting a vision for the future is quite different from giving an interview to a reporter about the current state of affairs. To nit pick FDR like that is to miss the point of the speech entirely. Not at all the same as AOC's interview where she is talking about the current state of affairs. She made a mistake, and should just correct it, learn and move on. No big deal.
She doesn't even have to apologize; she could just say "I meant..." and move on. Nobody would care.

I don't even think that the interview was a disaster in its entirety; much of what she said was spot on generally. She just needs to be better prepared when discussing the details. I don't disagree with Pantastic in that politicians frequently misstate facts or spin facts in their favor, but there's an art to it. In the context of an interview with an organization that has a reputation for being neutral, intellectual, and professional, AOC needed to up her game a little bit. I wouldn't say she swung and missed, but let's just say that she hit a foul ball. Just be better prepared, that's all.
  #342  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:34 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So you think that criticism of FDR's speech in the style that I gave is not excessive, nitpicking, or otherwise unreasonable? YM obviously V.

Reading the Dope is like peeking into bizarro-world sometime. ...
I agree with the latter ... after reading your latests posts anyway!

No, AOC "two jobs" etc. bits were not on par with that vision and a vision for the country being not literal eyesight or "fear itself" and it is bizzaro-world to be making that comparison.

No, it was not a metaphor, a simile, or even hyperbole. It was just incorrect. Wrong. Dare we say, an "alternative fact." She's a 28 year old suddenly thrust into the national spotlight who is being told she is of tremendous importance and significance and she believes it. Seasoned professionals have fumbles and stumbles when in that space, with the cameras on all angles ready to replay in slo-mo. It would be much more of a surprise if she had no flubs than that she dropped the ball once or twice.

Her long term career would be best served with a chance to not be "so much" right away. Very very few can do that. Let her get into Congress and get her feet wet, give her a chance to grow and develop, before pushing her celebritidom too hard. And let her learn from mistakes rather pretend that her shit don't stank.
  #343  
Old 08-11-2018, 11:19 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,901
Well said, DSeid. She also has kind of been thrust into the role of latest right-wing boogeyperson, if my 30 second exposure to el Rushbo whilst scanning the radio dial is any indication.
  #344  
Old 08-11-2018, 01:33 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
How should she correct it?
Poor wording on my part. She should correct it if asked about it. It's such a minor thing, really, that a proactive correction isn't warranted. It's not even yesterday's news anymore.
  #345  
Old 08-11-2018, 01:41 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,245
Sure looked like hyperbole to me.
  #346  
Old 08-11-2018, 05:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Sure looked like hyperbole to me.
Hyperbole can still be wrong. Obviously, she would be using hyperbole if she said "everyone is working two jobs". We all understand she doesn't mean that literally. But if you say "unemployment is low because everyone is working two jobs" when two-job-holders are at a low level, that's misleading with the hyperbole.
  #347  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:28 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,058
She has now turned her penetrating insight onto the military budget -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez
"Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion dollar budget increase, which they didn’t even ask for,” she said. “They were like, ‘we don’t want another fighter jet. Don’t give us another nuclear bomb.’ They didn’t even ask for it. And we gave it to them."
with a similar outcome.

She also suggesting including funeral expenses under Medicare for All, but maybe that's just if UHC doesn't help.

She also said that Israel is occupying Palestine, but at least she knows that she doesn't know what she is saying.
Quote:
I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.
Do tell.

Regards,
Shodan
  #348  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:36 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
She has now turned her penetrating insight onto the military budget -
with a similar outcome.

She also suggesting including funeral expenses under Medicare for All, but maybe that's just if UHC doesn't help.

She also said that Israel is occupying Palestine, but at least she knows that she doesn't know what she is saying.
Do tell.

Regards,
Shodan
You're really afraid of her, aren't you?
  #349  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:46 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,045
AOC embarrassed herself in Hawaii by supporting Kaniela Ing in Hawaii’s 1st CD. Ing got a whopping 6% of the vote.

Sorry, AOC, Chaminade beating Virginia was a fluke, just like your race was.

She has a choice now. She can keep tilting at windmills and trying to move that window or whatever she thinks she’s accomplishing.

Or, she can focus on her race in New York and start learning how to build coalitions and become an effective member of the House of Representatives.

Last edited by dalej42; 08-14-2018 at 03:47 PM.
  #350  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:54 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Considering that probably makes her easier to tie into Venezuelan socialism, it probably doesn't hurt.
Why Venezuelan socialism and not just plain ol socialism? Venezuela is just the latest place it doesn’t work because it wasn’t implemented right or something. Why not try it here though? Who isn’t looking forward to raiding the zoo for dinner?

Last edited by octopus; 08-14-2018 at 04:54 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017