Jeebus. This lady really scares you. Any ideas why?
She has a vagina?
In a highly predicable defense of herself, she claims that anyone accusing her of a factual error just doesn’t understand that she was… uh, speaking in metaphors or something. Or maybe it’s principles? Could be ideas… or morals… but definitely not facts.
To review, this is what she posted:
And this is how she said that everyone in the reality-based community is, like, sooooo dumb.
She reminds me of the recent college graduate who gets hired to a job, and instantly thinks (a) they are smarter than everyone else, and (b) nobody appreciates how awesome they are.
In fairness, it’s probably factually true that AOC is smarter than **Shodan **(no offense to **Shodan **intended, just that AOC is clearly significantly smarter than he is, on account of she’s probably in the top 5%), and probably most of the Republicans in Congress as well.
Also, I think it’s time **SlackerInc **was banned. **Bone **should have done it instead of just locking the thread. Thought that shit wasn’t tolerated any more; not sure why that useless asshole got a pass.
The Shodans of the world hate the fact that other countries can do it. But they’ll never admit it.
I’ve noticed that any criticism of her usually evokes this line. She’s sort of become immune to criticism, because whatever the complaint is about her policy or her statements, the conversation just shifts to, “Boy, you’re scared of her.”
It’s quite effective.
Didn’t she go to Harvard? She could be like Mark Zuckerberg: a genius who is a totes nitwit. Time will tell.
The gateway pundit says,
EXCLUSIVE: Yorktown Elitist and Bronx Hoaxer Went by “Sandy” Well into College at Boston U
Scandalous! How the hell did someone named “Alexandria” ever come up with “Sandy”? Clearly the RWers are not obsessed with or terrified of her.
There’s where it went wrong.
Uhhhh…
She’s become noticeably more polished in the last month alone. (Which gives her a leg up on a few posters I won’t mention who have been posting here for years without any improvement at all).
I’d’ve never heard of her, at least NOT BEFORE SHE EVEN TOOK OFFICE! had the Shodans of the world not made such a stink about her. I’ve heard rumors that Pelosi created her specifically to piss Republicans off. I believe it.
Ah, it was Boston University.
Same thing, really.
(waiting for the Harvard grads to blow their gaskets…)
She has?
Yeah, her interview with Cooper was very polished (IMHO).
As I alluded to earlier, she’s getting better. What misinformed thing, like the “21T” comment, has she said lately?
I have to wonder if liberals are hamstringing themselves by caring about such piddling things as “facts and “objective reality.” Trump and the Republicans seem to be doing pretty good for themselves denying reality and substituting their own, after all.
I will check out the rest, but the part I quoted was delusional, not polished.
I dunno. I’m not obsessed with her. I also don’t track Steve King to find out what dumb things he has said in the last six days.
Yeah, IKWYM. In reality, I think a smart Republican (and such do actually still exist) would be happy to run against her as a presidential or vice presidential candidate (not, obviously until she becomes eligible in 2024 or later). She has yet to show any evidence that she appeals to swing voters. Which is why if anyone should be scared of her, it is pragmatic Democrats who want to win. She has so much appeal to certain segments of the party, she could cause a lot of trouble in presidential primaries that could lead to an own-goal November defeat.
ETA: Hi, EE. Still butthurt, I see.
I do not see how you can quote what she said and get that interpretation out of it.
She does not make an argument about what she is saying being some form of correct. She makes the argument that focusing on a single mistake here or there misses the forest for the trees. She argues that she wasn’t elected because she’s always right, but because people know she’s on the morally right side.
When further challenged, she says that she agrees that factual accuracy is important (directly at odds with your claim) and that she always walks back comments when she finds out she is mistaken.
And that there is a difference between this and Trump’s outright lying about immigrants. That is morally wrong, and shows he’s on the wrong side.
At no point does she argue she is awesome or smarter than everyone else. At no point does she go through a euphemism treadmill to defend her statement.
The only concern I have is that she’s clearly being a politician here. She’s doing the classic question pivot. Granted, she seems to answer more of the question than the usual politician, but it still is taking a question that puts out a negative narrative about her and answering it in a way spins it to a positive.
However, that is a far cry from your claim that she is arguing that factual inaccuracy is unimportant and that she thinks she can do no wrong. Her problem is not that of a college student. It is that of a politician.
It’s the same problem I have with tons of politicians, actually. I do get why they do it, but a lot of them cross the line into outright lies or avoiding the question. I hope Ocasio-Cortez is able to walk the line and maintain her authenticity.
Authenticity means you will make mistakes. What matters is how you deal with them. And, as far as I’m concerned, she’s still on the right side. She’s not pretending they are not mistakes, nor refusing to walk things back. She’s just spinning that in the best light, and avoiding giving extra quotes to be used against her.
“Still”?? Have you previously posted your masturbatory fantasies to the Elections forum like a complete fucking douchebag? And here I was thinking this was a new low for you.
(While typing this I realized that your despicable racist posts were actually much lower than posting creepy sexual fantasies to a forum for serious discussion–though I guess you previously had sufficient self-awareness to keep your creepy weird posts to the pit where they belong–so not so much “new low” as continuing lowness)
Given how far off you were from what she actually said, I would suggest you actually go back and read it. Because your interpretation seems to be the one you came up with ahead of time before she actually gave hers.
I mean, she actually pulled of the politician’s pivot. That’s generally considered a pretty polished move.