Look, when people are so balls to the wall nuts on economics, who knows what they are trying to say. In her case, she appears to be an effective communicator, so I am pretty sure she chose her words carefully.
Taken with her other wild claims, I am unsure what is reasonable to think.
Ok, maybe you can be my translator for the wild claims of these progressives.
You’re awfully animated about this point, Will. Why so?
Never mind that it’s a completely Doperish thing to examine a rhetorical, off-the-cuff statement overliterally and overnarrowly. But I do think most of us know what she meant, and that she’s right.
What’s interesting about this thread is that virtually every criticism about Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has been either wrong or easily rebutted. I’m sure there’s a lot to criticize her about, but I haven’t seen anything so far with any merit.
She’s going to get mercilessly ridiculed by the press, but she can take comfort in the fact that this is the same group of morons that engaged in false equivalency between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton throughout the entire campaign. It’s also the same moronic press that Bernie pushed aside and overpowered by talking directly with the people. That’s what she needs to do.
Ignore the haters, AOC!
:rolleyes:
Remember way back 20 posts ago when you said she could have said unemployment numbers were a bad metric and I pointed out she quite clearly did? Then you changed the subject? What would a reasonable person think about that?
Um, actually the press has been fawning all over her and suggesting that her fluke win is some sign of the future.
Here’s one example from this week’s New Yorker. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Historic Win and the Future of the Democratic Party | The New Yorker
AOC has accomplished nothing so far besides a fluke win in a heavily Democratic congressional district. I’m not quite sure she deserves a multi page story in The New Yorker.
Most of the Sanders backed candidates have lost and most have lost badly. AOC’s win doesn’t mean a sudden leftward shift for the Democrats. She was smart enough to run on an anti-ICE platform during a time where the news was dominated by the horrible Trump separation policy. Plus, Crowley was arrogant enough to send a surrogate to one of the debates.
We all bring our assumptions to the table. For instance, earlier you said:
Clearly, to you, hyper-capitalism means maximum economic freedom. To AOC, hyper-capitalism is probably something quite different: placing private profits over everything else, perhaps, based on her comments in this interview.
FWIW, although I understand what the “Abolish ICE” folks are actually saying and agree with them, I agree that the slogan itself is horrible and makes it way too easy to construct strawmen arguments like “You want completely open borders!”.
Yeah, I think all they are saying is return to the situation back before ICE was created, which wasn’t that long ago.
I agree 100% with you (and I know we rarely agree on politics!) Abolish ICE is a horrible theme to run on nationally. Most voters don’t know the difference between all the alphabet soup of government agencies that are responsible for immigration and all the changes that occurred after Sept. 11 and they assume ICE is the agency that’s responsible for all aspects of immigration, customs, asylum, and border enforcement. It is way too easy for the right to throw up strawman arguments about people streaming across the border along with an endless supply of drugs. Look how successful Trump has been tying immigrants to MS 13, an organisation that no one had heard of a year ago.
I will simply point out that this is akin to bemoaning the state of modern health education while pinning one’s hope on homeopaths and chiropractors; or denouncing psychology and preferring dianetics.
Oh sure, I said the same. I feel that Lieberman should know better though before spouting the same strawman arguments (especially given the supposed goal of No Labels) and don’t really understand why adaher would try to give Lieberman cover for it but that’s today’s politics for ya.
What is that actual reason? The perpetrators of 9/11 were not immigrants, they were here on student visas.
Some actually do, though it’s obviously up to those who believe that way to address and make the argument, not the ones who don’t.
It was “INS” or “la Migra” when I was growing up. “ICE” sounds like a rapper.
But then, I had heard of MS-13 several years ago, too. And I know what a coyote is.
She flubbed that one.
Off the cuff interviews are often tough for seasoned career pols … Elizabeth Warren’s lack of skill at speaking off the cuff is one of the factors that will likely wean her out of the primaries early, for example … a newb flubbing a question? Only news because this newb is so suddenly put into the national spotlight and thus under the national microscope in ways newbs usually are not.
Her story grabs people for lots of reasons. Hers was the win that progressives needed to not become completely despondent over primary losses. She can effectively outreach to various demographics in ways older white men or even older white women cannot. And everyone loves a David felling Goliath unexpected upset story.
I’m not going to hold her to the standard of a presidential nominee or even of a a candidate for Senate. She’s not ready for that level of play. Not sure she won’t be in the future though. She has some raw talent and the work ethic. FWIW I’ll be interested to see what happens in her career.
No, she didn’t flub anything; it’s people who think she flubbed the interview who flubbed the ability to understand what she was saying in its entirety. Seriously, are we going to keep falling for this “You didn’t build that” or “Spread the wealth” meme bullshit? Are we that fucking daft?
No, she didn’t flub shit; people who can’t concentrate for more than 10 seconds are flubbing informed, intelligent debate - and they’re flubbing their civic responsibility to be informed voters.
How is *not *fucking obvious that the point is about low wages and lack of benefits for a large part of the work force, requiring multiple jobs and long hours and separation from family? Or *is *it obvious, and this is the obstructionist response, deflection?
Yes, this ^
I normally don’t get so worked up over something in the elections thread, but I’m so tired of meme politics, where we take one little statement deliberately out of context and then characterize it as something else.
"Yabbut that’s literally what she said! Hah! Hah! I win!"
And then other people take the bait and agree that she misspoke and that she’s ignorant and knows nothing. No, she’s not at all ignorant; she’s completely correct in everything that she’s been criticized for saying. I have no doubt that there are gaps in her knowledge, but Christ, 60-65 million people knowingly elected an ignorant buffoon who’s destroying this country every day.
That’s why Joe Lieberman is such a disingenuous traitorous bastard. He was perfectly willing to serve in arguably the most corrupt administration in American history, and yet he’s going to call out AOC. We know where his interests lie - with corrupt plutocrats and Zionists. And nowhere else. To think of all his moral grandstanding over the years, lecturing Bill Clinton on the floor of the senate as though he were some sort of paragon of virtue. At least Clinton cared for his country.