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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
They found that progressive candidates endorsed by the likes of Bernie Sanders are doing okay, but what’s much more notable is how much the rhetoric and policy positions of “mainstream” Democrats has moved towards the platform of Sanders. Universal health care, $15 min wage, and much more, are now mainstream Democratic policy positions. That’s a big, big win for progressives in the mold of AOC. The progressives may be being beat in primaries quite often, but just as often, if not more so, they’re being joined, even when they lose. Most of these progressives who have lost have lost to other progressive candidates.
That’s not what I said. The “capitalist” economy you grew up in was shaped by social liberalism and central planning. Pure capitalism will lead to famine and war.
Khrushchev’s Soviet Union was an economic success. Cuba seems economically stable. Less extreme “socialism,” like social democracy, has a good record in the Benelux and the Nordic countries. Picking on Venezuela is cherry-picking.
When you’re an economic success, you don’t have to forcibly prevent your citizens from emigrating. Please don’t tell me you’re a Cuban apologist. Folks risk their lives to escape from that totalitarian, one-party state.
The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes. What if she really is the future of the Democratic party?
A socialist nutbag with delusions of adequacy, who responds with accusations of sexism every time someone calls her out on a whopper. Come to think of it, maybe she is the present of the Democratic party.
Sorry, but I just don’t see it - and I never agree with octopus on anything.:eek:
But economies that rely on centralized planning almost invariably turn out to be disasters. The market always outperform the ‘superman’ or ‘supermen’ who try to outperform it. You can redistribute the wealth that capitalism and free markets generate – that is absolutely the place for economists. But not in creating and sustaining wealth. Hospitals? Schools? Institutions? I see a role for government control there, but not in the market itself.
That being said, I suspect a lot of “socialists” are mislabeling themselves or being mislabeled. I doubt most American “socialists” want to control the market; they just want to redistribute wealth through taxation and investment, which has been economic orthodoxy of many center-left democratic, capitalist societies for the last 70 years.
Since we’re talking about socialists, and by virtue of that, human intervention in markets, what are your thoughts on the current president? How do you feel about his intervention in free trade? What are your thoughts on his repeated efforts to injure American brands with his twitter rage? These aren’t the tactics of Obama, but rather Hugo Chavez or even Vladimir Putin. Where’s your outrage?