In a system of self government where we should want a variety of experiences and outlooks I don’t think denigrating AOC for her employment history is productive.
No I didn’t say it. You imagined I said it and when I called you on it you said “well, you pretty much said it” without examples. Like I said, no homework assignments thanks.
Don’t personalize arguments in this fashion. The first sentence here is out of line.
Everyone - No more personal jabs.
You said it right here:
In post #374 I said I only wanted clarification on what you said. I had actually gone back and started collecting examples of you trying to have it both ways, alternating between occasionally saying she is qualified to other times where you trash her resume. After a bit I figured no need to go down that road.
No homework for you. Just you telling us what you mean from the piece I quoted above. What makes someone “fit for congress”?
Not being from and living in New Zealand. Also, not being a mere banquet server.
More conservative obsession over AOC: That oh-so-not-funny comic called “Mallard Fillmore” has had AOC spotlighted the last two days.
I wonder how many SDMB conservatives find that comic funny?
Your evasiveness on the simple question I asked is plain for all to see. I’ll leave it to other readers to decide how worthwhile discussing this with you is.
My work is done on this.
“Funny” and conservatism really do not go together. I think the best conservative comic I heard was Dennis Miller and we do not see much of him anymore.
I know they try but it is (usually) such low-brow, juvenile humor. Right up there with fart jokes in quality (that’s not really fair though because there are actually funny fart jokes).
I’m not kidding though. The right’s effort at memes and whatnot are wholly eclipsed by liberal memes. Want proof? What is the right’s answer to shows like The Daily Show or Real Time or The Tonight Show or Late Night with Seth Meyers?
Conservatives are all about fire and brimstone and “Grrrr!”. The want retribution and blood. Hard to find humor in that.
Oh, give me a fucking breaking. “What makes a fit Congressperson” is not a simple question except to a simple person. Obviously someone who votes in the interest of their constituents is the base answer of what makes a fit Congressperson.
I felt it was on the topic of how conservative media is taking things she says out of context and creating a different interpretation or impression that others might have. Discussing those differing impressions and how they were derived seemed on topic to me. Based on your comments, I have a different impression of AOC based on the media I’ve read and seen.
Creating a group that votes in tandem can help to clarify the message creating a clearer picture of what that group is standing for. Right now, one of the criticisms of Democrats is that they’re not clear about what they stand for. Their message is muddied by the differing stances of the members. In that group of Congressional Progressives, there aren’t many issues on which any of them agree. While people won’t agree on every issue because their district has different needs, if more of them can solidify under some defined policies that resonate with a broader range of Americans, it might be easier to get people behind their policies, particularly in upcoming elections.
I can understand your point about how the Freedom Caucas held the repeal and replace bills hostage and split the Republican party into inaction. But even without them announcing their group position, they probably would not have voted for the bill anyway. Announcing their stance made it very clear where they stood. Based on election results and the number of retiring members shown in this wiki with their former member numbers rivaling their original member numbers, their stance doesn’t seem popular by the American people.
Sorry, my bad. I should have capitalized Our Revolution. Our Revolution is a political action group that is backing AOC. The group was started based on the book by Bernie Sanders of the same name.
I thought it might have been clear from context because I was talking about the other groups backing her like the Justice Democrats and DSA. Obviously, I wasn’t clear enough.
The political policies of these 3 groups (which is not the entire list of her backers) are very similar.
Not sure why this bugs you. YOU were the person who made a claim of fitness for congress (or rather a lack thereof). You now refuse to tell us what that fitness is.
Just tell us what it is to be “fit for congress” or admit you have no freaking clue and just made it all up.
You can have humor about fear and disgust. but it’s hard to turn fear or disgust directly into laughter. Here’s Dick `Bloated Amygdala’ Cheney telling a joke.
For heaven’s sake. Two posts after Bone said to stop the personal cracks?
Warning issued. You should pay attention to moderator instruction.
What is wrong with the answer I gave? Do you have some specific claim I made somewhere that you are challenging? Please quote it. Because again, I’m not accepting random homework requests.
It’s glib.
Why is it so hard for you to point out the post where I made this supposed "fit for Congress " comment?
I’ll give you Warren.
All the rest you listed simply do not get the press and that’s the point. I’m a political junkie and a name or two you listed are new to me.
It is not about who I like best. I like many of the people you listed (Jan Schakowsky used to be my representative till I moved a year ago). I would love it if more of them got air time to talk about their politics. Till that happens we’ve got Warren, Sanders and now AOC to some extent out in front pushing the progressive cause.
It isn’t. See post #384 where I already did that for you.
And in that case my apologies for not comprehending the point, which on reread with that clarification, makes much more sense!
And further you might be right, meaning that my concerns may be based more on the media hyperattention filter than more full context would result in. Whack-a-Mole’s point can be built upon - the media in particular wants to have a figurehead for a movement. They have a movement to deal with, progressives in the Democrat party, who are in better position to be the dominant voices of the party than ever, at least since Bill Clinton won with his “Third Way” approach. But Sanders as a figurehead is faded fast and Warren pretty much already failed in her attempt to take the role up. And while one or more may try to become that figurehead during the primary cycle to come (and Sanders may try to take it back up) they don’t really have anyone to put in that media space right now. That may be part of the attention AOC is getting. Her underdog victory of a new generation progressive beating the older school established Democrat makes her a good placeholder for that figurehead spot. Which puts her in the crosshairs to find things she says that might be of interest and earn clicks, even if in full context they are less controversial or concerning.
I don’t think there is anyone here or otherwise who believes that she is, at this point, the best person to be the figurehead for progressives or for Democrats. Maybe someday she will be. Or not. But not now. It does seem that conservatives and the media in aggregate though want to put her in that position, for different reasons but both wanting that. But she really is just a placeholder.
Oh, I already answered that. BanquetBear is a New Zealander, thus making him unfit for Congress. You see, the only real requirements is being an American living in the state you represent. Any other questions?