As a registered Burnitdowntothefuckinggroundarian…I concur. I look forward to six more years of Americans exposing themselves as the insane tribalists of the world.
It’s why she is both feared and derided. It’s sixth grade rhetoric and it actually solves nothing. As a Representative, it’s ineffectual. Is there anyone on that committee that isn’t aware of the money in politics or ethics rules governing it? She offered no proposal and largely merely gave a line of questioning that you could find in a middle school debate club with all of their rhetorical flourishes. The fear though is that the capite censi essentially exist at the middle school level. We comprehend through simplistic statements that assume our idiocy. We have neither the time nor will to truly understand issues, so we rely on soundbites and memes with essentially zero complexity or nuance as our main guides to the world. Trump understands this and AOC understands it.
Do you mind showing your work?
This reminds me of the time I spent a few months cheering for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination, assuming he’d be easy to beat and result in a Democratic landslide.
The difference is that AOC is young, actually energetic, compassionate, and capable of learning, with the added bonus of not having spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory or bragging about violating the consent of women and girls.
I don’t know if AOC is the future of the party, but I love the idea of young and energetic progressives getting into government. If Republicans are cheering along with me, then please proceed, governor.
You think she was asking those questions in an effort to educate the committee members? 
Yup. As for the insanely grandiose nature of the Green New Deal, you gotta remember: she’s gonna be alive in forty years when today’s pollution really starts to kick in. Most of the dingbats writing laws now know that they’re going to be gone when climate change’s next level nonsense goes down; they can be cautious and dismissive.
She lacks that luxury. So do her generational peers.
And they know that.
That last sentence is quite a fantastic claim. Can you back it up? Take, for instance, just as one crucial issue, the fact that Trump is a congenital liar and absolutely nothing he says can or should be believed. He set a new record on September 7 of last year when he publicly told 125 fact-checked lies in just 120 minutes. That’s a little over one lie per minute, so his statements were basically a string of lies with some words connecting them together, the lies issuing forth pretty much every time his mouth opened. The Washington Post (same link above) cites Fact Checker as having currently compiled 5000 lies he’s told between his inauguration and last fall, and the daily rate of lies seems to be rising.
Got the same cite for OAC, since you claim she’s basically the same? She was criticized for correctly quoting a study about astronomical Pentagon spending that turned out to contain questionable figures and using it to make a point about Medicare for All. She acknowledged the mistake. She’s young and inexperienced, and passionate about what she thinks is right. Trump is old, stupid, corrupt, and is passionate only about enriching himself. And he lies the way normal people breathe, unconsciously, really just making things up as he goes. But I’ll change my mind if you find me a cite that shows 5000 unacknowledged lies from AOC, or that she’s a pathological narcissist who cares about nothing but herself. Otherwise I reject your ridiculous comparison.
Wow, you really are from a foreign country.
I’m actually getting sick of the AOC exposure now, because it’s hit the point that the cameras point at her whenever she’s in the crowd, no matter who’s speaking. But making a beautiful young woman the face of her faction? Yeah, that’s a shame. :rolleyes:
Look, friend, if your guys were in control of the narrative & just wanted to mock the Justice Democrats, you could have made AOC’s buddy, the hijabi Ilhan Omar, the face of the movement. You are clearly not in control. Your reporters aren’t even in control of their own eyes. She’s a magnet for your photographers, your reporters, your columnists, & your audience.
And those Democratic constituents? They’ve been wanting us to spend money on our own people for decades. That’s what the Green New Deal is. It’s an economic stimulus theory.
Maybe you don’t know this, Canadian, but the oil companies left the Democrats a generation ago. They don’t get a say in this.
That can’t be her argument. Her opponent, Joe Crowley, took corporate PAC money in the primary election. He lost. If her point was that anyone taking corporate PAC money in an election wins, she would have lost.
The difficulty with your solution is that the person has to get elected into Congress, people have to notice, then vote them out. That gives incentive for people to do the wrong thing and puts a lot of responsibility on the voters that are not doing this as a full time job.
Her solution is to take corporate PAC money out altogether which has the benefit of removing the incentive altogether. It has also been reported that congresspeople spend up to 4 hours a day raising funds from these corporations, leaving little time to meet with the rest of their constituents. That’s what happened with Joe Crowley. He was so busy talking to corporate donors and trying to get legislation on their behalf, he lost sight of what his own constituents wanted, which is how AOC was able to get elected because she went out to talk to them.
She is absolutely the gift that keeps on giving. The GOP was in prime position to get waxed in 2020 and likely permanently. But the Dems have chosen to focus on AOC and her socialist agenda. A Republican strategist could not have dreamed for a better foil than AOC in the next election. It is on par with Dukakis and Mondale.
It’s funny…all I keep seeing when righties talk about AOC is cartoon dinosaurs pointing and laughing at the meteor as it comes down…
Aye; just like Clinton vs Trump in 2016, eh?
I don’t buy the argument that the GOP is happy about AOC. If someone is self-evidently bad, you don’t need to constantly watch her and shape a narrative about her.
Clearly they think she’s actually energizing her part of the electorate, so they are trying to put out a counter narrative that she’s actually bad, to counter this. That’s why the narrative is so devoid of any substance. She didn’t smile at the State of the Union. She said some words that could supposedly be stupid. She’s pushing an environmental policy (you know, like the Dems have done a lot). There’s the heavy lean on the word “socialist.” There’s a big push on how she’s young and popular and treating that like a bad thing (same as they did with Obama).
It makes sense: her popularity rating is higher than your president. Adn the GOP has long been afraid of any “socialist” (by American standards) policies becoming popular. And Trump has shown you that attacking the individual works so well.
That makes no sense. No politician gets rich off of tax money. Politicians either get rich legitimately through speaking engagements and people choosing to pay them, or they get rich illegitimately by getting money from lobbyists and corporations that want to influence their votes.
And even if we do restrict ourselves to salaries, there’s no reason reducing salaries means reducing taxes.
I’ve heard some bad libertarian ideas, but this one is just silly. You don’t get money out of politics by reducing taxes. If anything, taxes are the one source of income without strings, without giving more control to the people who spend the most.
Hey, hey… up is down and green is ice cream and pinto beans are chianti. So of course reducing taxes will produce fewer corrupt politicians. It’s so obvious; I can’t believe I have to lay it out all so simple like that for you.
Which phylum are the Dems in this story? Pterosaurs? Plesiosaurs?
That’s not what phylum means. We’re the cute junior class that figured out how to adapt to climate change. Mammals.
I knew I was going to get nailed for the definition of phylum there.
If your summary is correct, I see no problem with this. The problem comes in when her policies seek to give more power to the government she thinks is easily corrupted. This is not a problem unique to her or even to her ideology.
Yours suffers from it as well, although I’ve seen no signs that you’ve thought about the matter.
The problem isn’t that government is easily corrupted; it’s that humans are easily corrupted, and that humans like to form organizations that concentrate power.
As long as there are people in positions of power, people are gonna succumb to corruption. This is true whether they’re gang leaders or warlords or CEOs or senators or principals or mom-and-pop business owners.
What AOC and others want is to concentrate power in organizational structures that have accountability to the people over whom they have power; and then to tweak the rules under which they operate so that the people over whom they have power can get the information they need to make informed decisions.
I’ve thought for awhile about starting a thread called “Beyond Democracy,” to speculate on what form of governance will eventually supplant nation-state representational democracy. But that’s a heady thread to start :).