Why not? She showed she’s a bully. I thought Dems hated bullies or is that only Pub bullies?
I don’t think “bullying” applies to aggressively questioning billionaires. “Bullying” implies a power differential, and Zuckerberg is much, much more powerful than AOC.
Sarak Palin has a degree in communications.
From what I’ve seen of AOC, she does not seem particularly bright. At least many of her positions are not well thought out.
“what I’ve seen” = find better news sources. Ones that aren’t deliberately trying to mold your opinions.
It was not “rhetorical excess”. It was a factual statement A is caused by B and C and factually B and C has nothing to do with A. It’s like saying Moon phases are caused by the shadow of the flat Earth and that the moon creates its own light. That’s not rhetorical excess - it plain wrong and stupid.
I don’t think “questioning” means cutting off the answer then substituting your own as if the person said that.
Fine, showboating, or ranting, or whatever. Still not bullying.
Why would opening a PAC to support and encourage like-minded candidates be “abnormal”? She’s one of the most well-known politicians in the country right now. Why should she not try to leverage that power?
Is this just another way of saying AOC needs to sit down and be quiet?
You’re right. Thinking about it, that’s kinda how Ted Cruz rolled out of the gate. Only, he was a first term Senator trying to control national party direction and primary bad Republicans, rather than a Congressperson.
…for context here is the entire 5 minutes between AOC and Zuckerberg.
Here is what Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist who has been leading the charge against Cambridge Analytica had to say about the opening question:[QUOTE=Carole Cadwalladr]
Be still my beating heart..
@aoc
asks Zuckerberg the question. I & others (notably
@jason_kint
) have been asking for a loooong time. When exactly did he first learn about Cambridge Analytica? Tell me, does this sound like a convincing answer to you?
[/QUOTE]
More context:
[QUOTE=Jason Kint]
So Mark Zuckerberg either lied under oath today -or- at minimum is unfit to run Facebook. Read the evidence in SEC claim here. He testified he wasn’t aware of issues until March 2018 and doesn’t know when his COO or board was aware.
[/QUOTE]
So AOC’s opening salvo was a question that hadn’t been put to Zuckerberg before and his answer was either a lie or demonstrated colossal incompetence. This isn’t a bad thing. This is precisely the sort of thing one would expect your elected representatives to do.
As for the rest: I’m not entirely sure what it is you are complaining about. I’ve just listened again. “You don’t know if I will be able to do that” is an entirely fair summation of Zuckerberg’s answer, which was “I don’t know the answer off the top of my head.” Is that what you object too? They only have five minutes to ask questions. It wouldn’t make any sense to allow Zuckerberg to waffle when he has already stated he can’t answer the question.
Of course it was “rhetorical excess”. She absolutely was not displaying “ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated”. The “unemployment rate” and how it is calculated was not the topic of the conversation and is not the issue she was addressing.
She said “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.”
That’s not a display of “ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated”.
She was addressing the difficulties some people (and yes, she was wrong for using the term “everyone”- that’s the “rhetorical excess”) encounter in making ends meet.
I agree with her: People shouldn’t have to work two jobs and 60-80 hours a week to feed their families.
The problem, as I recall, is that she was incorrect about that too. The number of people working multiple jobs is at a low point historically speaking.
LOL- which is your primary issue with her? Her “intellectual curiosity”, her “bartending” (she waited tables, too!), or being from the Bronx?
I’m curious about that, too. Looking on businessinsider.com, a few presidents had less-than-spectacular previous jobs. Truman, of course, was famously a haberdasher. Lincoln was a general store clerk, Benjamin Harrison was a court crier, LBJ was a shoe shine boy, Nixon plucked chickens.
I wonder if he has a problem with Lincoln’s “intellectual curiosity.”
Ditto. Was my intellectual curiosity any less when I was working near-minimum-wage jobs in my early 20s just to get by, than it was ~15 years later when I was a PhD mathematician?
Hell no - same me, same intellectual curiosity, just more focused with respect to goals. I bet the same could be said about AOC. She seems pretty focused these days. 
And I bet there are a lot of people with plenty of intellectual curiosity who are stuck in crap jobs because life hasn’t given them many options. So the notion that bartending is evidence of a lack of intellectual curiosity strikes me as class prejudice.
Well guys, don’tcha know, the intellectually superior go straight for the CEO jobs. No need to climb the lower rungs like you peasants.
/sarcasm
It’s always disappointing to hear, see, or read comments that denigrate working people for the work that they do, as if the work you do to pay your bills defines your worth, your value, or your character.
I’m quite sure that AOC’s work is one of the many reasons people like her. She’s relatable.
It’s likely one of the reasons I like her too.
I waited tables and tended bar too until I got my degree and began to work in my field of study in 1992.
Unlike AOC, I went to school at a time when college costs were much less expensive so I was able to pay for my education while I was in school with the fabulous $2.09 an hour (plus tips) that I made serving food and drinks. I hear the minimum wage for food service in my state now has gone up. Almost 30 years later, food service now pays a whopping $2.13 an hour in my state. Seriously- a 5 cent increase in 30 years.
My Associates Degree cost me about $6,500.
AOC paid off her school loans after she graduated and while working as a waitress and bartender. She also made $2.13 (plus tips). I don’t know how much her BA cost but I remember when she Tweeted that she had just made a payment on her school loan and the the debt was now under $20,000. That was 8 years after she graduated.
She also won her first political victory over the well-entrenched 10 term Democrat, Congressman Joe Crowley, while working as a waitress and bartender.
Crowley congratulated her afterward.
Trump Tweeted “at” Crowley about his loss and gloating that he had been beaten. Trump somehow managed to refrain from pointing out that Crowley had been beaten ‘by a girl’ or ‘by a waitress’.
Trump said "Perhaps he (Crowley) should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!”
Why should Crowley have sucked up to Trump? Was Trump going to throw some support Crowley’s way?
Of course not.
Trump got AOC instead, and it drove him nuts.
She seems to drive other folks nuts too.
Would they ‘like her better’ if she behaved the way they want her to?
Of course not.
To me, that just makes the whole AOC thing that much better!
Some people don’t like that she is rocking the boat.
Others think that the Democrats don’t really need their own version of the tea p-arty movement to “purify” the party.
You’re not going to win any elections without those terrified moderates.
Same thing goes for boomers.
Right. Just like the Republicans embraced the tea partiers and Trump because they got a bunch of folks excited. Does this make the Democrats a better party or just more sensational and stupider?