Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread

[The Commish 12,495]

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

You just can't bring yourself to criticize your hero.  

I'm curious what I have said in this forum or that you already know about me by some other means that leads you to believe she's my hero

@jon_mx

Or are you in traction from using that broad brush you tend to use that gets you in trouble a good portion of the time?

[jon_mx 8,654]

22 minutes ago, The Commish said:

@jon_mx

Or are you in traction from using that broad brush you tend to use that gets you in trouble a good portion of the time?

What broad brush?  I make very specific criticisms of her statement that have a heck of a lot more thought and substance than what she says.  The responses I get are why are you so afraid, why are you so worked up, she is just a young girl who is learning, at least she is trying....this lady gets rock star treatment and the msm treats her with kids gloves.  Her insane ideas are loved by the far left.  I am hoping that one of you will actually take a stand instead of deflecting so much.  

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

Well apparently Cortez has posted a statement, in reply to a comment from KA Conway this morning.

[SHIZNITTTT 2,809]

Why does the RNC hate this woman so much?  Is it because she is pretty?  Is it because she is a rising star in the DNC?   It seems almost day one after her election the RNC along with FOX talking heads, and radio blowhards have gone into a lunatic mode in trying to bringing her down. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

2 hours ago, identikit said:

5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If the 14-0 ratio is true, that’s kind of weird and warrants asking her for an explanation.

Implying that she’s biased in favor or Muslims over Christians, though, seems even weirder. She is Catholic (with some Jewish heritage); she is not now, nor has she ever been, a Muslim.

During her Firing Line interview last year, she used the term 'the occupation of Palestine.'

Was telling for me, as to the direction she leans.

A view on policy towards Palestine (which I disagree with her on btw) is different from religiosity though, right? 

Edited April 28, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[The Commish 12,495]

36 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What broad brush?  I make very specific criticisms of her statement that have a heck of a lot more thought and substance than what she says.  The responses I get are why are you so afraid, why are you so worked up, she is just a young girl who is learning, at least she is trying....this lady gets rock star treatment and the msm treats her with kids gloves.  Her insane ideas are loved by the far left.  I am hoping that one of you will actually take a stand instead of deflecting so much.  

I'm asking you for evidence of why you believe she's my "hero" and now, what you think I am deflecting away from?  Both these comments, when directed at me, only make sense if you feel that I am on her side.  I'm asking you what leads you to believe that.  It couldn't possibly be anything I've said here because I don't think I've made anything that resembles direct support and approval of her.  So, there has to be some other broad brush assumption you're making once again  

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

14 minutes ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

Why does the RNC hate this woman so much?  Is it because she is pretty?  Is it because she is a rising star in the DNC?   It seems almost day one after her election the RNC along with FOX talking heads, and radio blowhards have gone into a lunatic mode in trying to bringing her down. 

Strictly politically and neutrally, I don't think it's a good idea. They're (the GOP) essentially promoting her and she is appealing and fairly nimble online and in debates. The Trump GOP is constantly focusing on increasing passion in the base and disregarding what is happening with the middle which Trump is happy to alienate.

Edited April 28, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

She is hardly even a politician.   There was a PAC which took applications and held interviews.   Her brother applied for her.  They ran her campaign, financed her campaign, and provided the platforms and issues to run on.   She is the pretty face and voice of the PAC.  

I guess I'll echo Commish. I've commented here about the Amazon deal and before that on Cortez's win, which was an uspet. Say what you will how she got in the race (I have no idea) that was a very good campaign she ran and her stock primary commercial was really, really good. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

5 hours ago, jon_mx said:

6 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If the 14-0 ratio is true, that’s kind of weird and warrants asking her for an explanation.

Implying that she’s biased in favor or Muslims over Christians, though, seems even weirder. She is Catholic (with some Jewish heritage); she is not now, nor has she ever been, a Muslim.

She is very reluctant to ever imply anything bad about people of color or POC as she likes to say.   But she has no issue with saying the most condemning things about white nationals and painting with a broad brush.   

You mean white nationalists or white "nationals"? If the latter what does that refer to?

But just on the religiosity point, Trump is areligious from what I can tell. I'll give Cortez credit for being with family in Puerto Rico for Easter.

I wonder what Trump was doing on Easter day.

[parasaurolophus 6,357]

41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well apparently Cortez has posted a statement, in reply to a comment from KA Conway this morning.

Thats a very dishonest tweet. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

12 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Thats a very dishonest tweet. 

Because she’s had a week since Easter?

[timschochet 31,082]

38 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Thats a very dishonest tweet. 

In what way? I thought it was fine and to the point. 

I also find it extremely telling that Kellyanne Conway, like so many others here, seems obsessed with a new congresswoman. 

[badmojo1006 6,164]

1 hour ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

Why does the RNC hate this woman so much?  Is it because she is pretty?  Is it because she is a rising star in the DNC?   It seems almost day one after her election the RNC along with FOX talking heads, and radio blowhards have gone into a lunatic mode in trying to bringing her down. 

I agree. How did she get so deep in their heads? It is an obsession 

[Cowboysfan8 7,026]

17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In what way? 

I'm guessing the "I was away from tech" part

[parasaurolophus 6,357]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Because she’s had a week since Easter?

Yes and tweeted about several other things starting the day after easter. Including the release of the documentary about her and others. 

 

[timschochet 31,082]

40 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

I'm guessing the "I was away from tech" part

From what I’ve heard, there are large parts of Puerto Rico in which normal WiFi is not available, so I have no problem believing it. 

[parasaurolophus 6,357]

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

From what I’ve heard, there are large parts of Puerto Rico in which normal WiFi is not available, so I have no problem believing it. 

She was tweeting about other stuff. 

She didnt have to tweet about it at all. I always think that kind of criticism is dumb. It is like tge people that come in here and complain that people arent complaining in the trump threads. 

But if you are going to try and come up with a bs explanation, that is something you deserve criticism for. 

This is like cav's thread in the ffa where people tell stupid lies when they dont need to.

[fatguyinalittlecoat 10,721]

Aren’t AOC’s policy views very similar to Bernie Sanders?  

[yak651 926]

4 hours ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

Why does the RNC hate this woman so much?  Is it because she is pretty?  Is it because she is a rising star in the DNC?   It seems almost day one after her election the RNC along with FOX talking heads, and radio blowhards have gone into a lunatic mode in trying to bringing her down. 

I think the term they like to use is triggered, I believe she has the GOP triggered...

[timschochet 31,082]

2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

She was tweeting about other stuff. 

She didnt have to tweet about it at all. I always think that kind of criticism is dumb. It is like tge people that come in here and complain that people arent complaining in the trump threads. 

But if you are going to try and come up with a bs explanation, that is something you deserve criticism for. 

This is like cav's thread in the ffa where people tell stupid lies when they dont need to.

Some of the tweets are likely done by staff and scheduled well beforehand. I don’t know why you just assume she’s lying. 

[Cowboysfan8 7,026]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Some of the tweets are likely done by staff and scheduled well beforehand. I don’t know why you just assume she’s lying. 

How's this?

https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC/status/1121243720295354368

[timschochet 31,082]

Just now, Cowboysfan8 said:

How's this?

https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC/status/1121243720295354368

You’re not exactly contradicting her. She says she was unplugged. 

[Cowboysfan8 7,026]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re not exactly contradicting her. She says she was unplugged. 

You missed the "(mostly unplugged)" I guess.

Good Lord Tim....lmao

She was "mostly unplugged". She's young, she tweets alot. I'd bet a years salary she checked Twitter daily

[timschochet 31,082]

Just now, Cowboysfan8 said:

You missed the "(mostly unplugged)" I guess.

Good Lord Tim....lmao

She was "mostly unplugged". She's young, she tweets alot. I'd bet a years salary she checked Twitter daily

I don’t know. I don’t automatically assume that. Why do you care so much? Why does Kellyanne Conway care to even bring this up? 

[parasaurolophus 6,357]

10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Some of the tweets are likely done by staff and scheduled well beforehand. I don’t know why you just assume she’s lying. 

In order to believe the reason she hadn't tweeted about sri lanka was because she was in puerto rico and unplugged i would have to ignore that she tweeted repeatedly between the 22nd and today or i would have to assume she is a puppet and somebody else is in charge since so many of the tweets are first person. 

I dont care one bit if she tweets about sri lanka. 

I dislike dishonesty. She is being dishonest.

This doesnt even address the whole attempt at saying that this is an attack on her being christian and her faith. That has zero to do with it. That's just more smoke and mirrors. 

[timschochet 31,082]

5 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

In order to believe the reason she hadn't tweeted about sri lanka was because she was in puerto rico and unplugged i would have to ignore that she tweeted repeatedly between the 22nd and today or i would have to assume she is a puppet and somebody else is in charge since so many of the tweets are first person. 

I dont care one bit if she tweets about sri lanka. 

I dislike dishonesty. She is being dishonest.

This doesnt even address the whole attempt at saying that this is an attack on her being christian and her faith. That has zero to do with it. That's just more smoke and mirrors. 

IMO it’s absolutely an attack on her religion. Just like with Obama, the conservative playbook is to hint that she’s not really a Christian because she doesn’t care about when Christians get killed, only when Muslims get killed. For years conservatives continually implied that Obama was a Christian in name only, and now they’re pulling the same crap with her. It’s pretty despicable. 

[the moops 6,490]

8 hours ago, jon_mx said:

She is hardly even a politician.   There was a PAC which took applications and held interviews.   Her brother applied for her.  They ran her campaign, financed her campaign, and provided the platforms and issues to run on.   She is the pretty face and voice of the PAC.  

Pretty sure my aunt forwarded me this same email a few weeks ago. The "AOC is really an actress and not even a politician" is a good one guys.

[timschochet 31,082]

1 hour ago, the moops said:

Pretty sure my aunt forwarded me this same email a few weeks ago. The "AOC is really an actress and not even a politician" is a good one guys.

Best President of my lifetime offered this about himself as a positive, not a negative. 

[jon_mx 8,654]

2 hours ago, the moops said:

Pretty sure my aunt forwarded me this same email a few weeks ago. The "AOC is really an actress and not even a politician" is a good one guys.

Is there something I posted which is untrue.  I wrote every word.  I can source the facts if you wish.  But this cesspool doesn't care about facts.  

[Glass Joe 522]

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Is there something I posted which is untrue.  I wrote every word.  I can source the facts if you wish.  But this cesspool doesn't care about facts.  

You are putting a spin on her history - yes she was given a push by a PAC that was looking for new faces. But the implication that she was simply a face, and had no political beliefs or involvement is incorrect. She certainly comes with a viewpoint, she’s not divorced from the ideas she espouses.

While idealism often isn’t realistic, aren’t dreamers a good thing in general, pushing envelopes, pushing us to think differently? I think you need them. My question for you - is why have you jumped in on the hate-fest? You spend emotional energy on her, when the monster in charge is doing far worse than she is capable of.

[The Commish 12,495]

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

But this cesspool doesn't care about facts. 

You mean like making up garbage about people to fit them into a particular narrative instead of paying attention to who people actually support, views they hold etc?  Yeah, this place has been known to be pretty resistant to that sort of thing.

 

[jon_mx 8,654]

13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You mean like making up garbage about people to fit them into a particular narrative instead of paying attention to who people actually support, views they hold etc?  Yeah, this place has been known to be pretty resistant to that sort of thing.

 

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

[Glass Joe 522]

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

You get called a whiner cause it seems you’re constantly #####ing about the “cesspool” this place is.

[The Commish 12,495]

49 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

It's tough to take seriously the "do as I say, not as I do" shtick adult to adult.  You'd probably have an easier go of it if you weren't one who freely does the things you complain about ot others doing  

[The Commish 12,495]

10 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Aren’t AOC’s policy views very similar to Bernie Sanders?  

This is what I thought.  Apparently we are wrong?  I should probably go read up on her given she's my hero and all.

[parasaurolophus 6,357]

9 hours ago, timschochet said:

IMO it’s absolutely an attack on her religion. Just like with Obama, the conservative playbook is to hint that she’s not really a Christian because she doesn’t care about when Christians get killed, only when Muslims get killed. For years conservatives continually implied that Obama was a Christian in name only, and now they’re pulling the same crap with her. It’s pretty despicable. 

I completely disagree. I think you are reading very deep into it and conflating two very different situations. As jon posted from the newsweek article...

"Pastor Darrell Scott said the reason Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not tweeted about the Sri Lanka bombings was because she could not use them “as a weapon against the Trump administration.”"

I think they are trying to paint her as somebody who only cares about tragedies when she can use them politically to attack woe is me trump. 

Trump only cares about Trump. So what is more logical. Him and his team making it about him or making a deeper argument about her faith? 

Painting her as non christian doesnt score him points since he isnt running against her. Being a victim of another unfounded attack from the meanie liberals does. 

The irony here is that now the trump admin is doing exactly what they are accusing her of. Using tragedy to score political points. 

[timschochet 31,082]

21 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I completely disagree. I think you are reading very deep into it and conflating two very different situations. As jon posted from the newsweek article...

"Pastor Darrell Scott said the reason Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not tweeted about the Sri Lanka bombings was because she could not use them “as a weapon against the Trump administration.”"

I think they are trying to paint her as somebody who only cares about tragedies when she can use them politically to attack woe is me trump. 

Trump only cares about Trump. So what is more logical. Him and his team making it about him or making a deeper argument about her faith? 

Painting her as non christian doesnt score him points since he isnt running against her. Being a victim of another unfounded attack from the meanie liberals does. 

The irony here is that now the trump admin is doing exactly what they are accusing her of. Using tragedy to score political points. 

It’s really not that deep an argument IMO. “Leftists aren’t real Christians”, “Leftists aren’t real patriots”, “Leftists only care about minorities and Muslims; they have nothing to say when white Christians get attacked”- these are themes that conservatives have either hinted about or argued outright for years. 

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,240]

27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s really not that deep an argument IMO. “Leftists aren’t real Christians”, “Leftists aren’t real patriots”, “Leftists only care about minorities and Muslims; they have nothing to say when white Christians get attacked”- these are themes that conservatives have either hinted about or argued outright for years. 

Perhaps this is an outgrowth of leftist arguments that one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the other guy.  To expand the conscience of the right leftist frequently ask how they would feel if X happened where traditional powers are reversed.  That exercise in empathy and in learning is conflated to mean that leftist are always of those sympathies, and then, unfortunately that they have no other sympathies.  This is, of course, foolish, but people are foolish. 

[jon_mx 8,654]

10 hours ago, timschochet said:

IMO it’s absolutely an attack on her religion. Just like with Obama, the conservative playbook is to hint that she’s not really a Christian because she doesn’t care about when Christians get killed, only when Muslims get killed. For years conservatives continually implied that Obama was a Christian in name only, and now they’re pulling the same crap with her. It’s pretty despicable. 

Your arguement is despicable.   You can't resist making the strawman.  

[timschochet 31,082]

Just now, jon_mx said:

Your arguement is despicable.   You can't resist making the strawman.  

You think my argument is despicable? Am I to ignore the 8 years of attacks on Obama based on the notion that his Christianity was faked? 

[timschochet 31,082]

11 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Perhaps this is an outgrowth of leftist arguments that one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the other guy.  To expand the conscience of the right leftist frequently ask how they would feel if X happened where traditional powers are reversed.  That exercise in empathy and in learning is conflated to mean that leftist are always of those sympathies, and then, unfortunately that they have no other sympathies.  This is, of course, foolish, but people are foolish. 

You’re absolutely right: for years liberals and leftists have argued, mostly unfairly, that conservatives are racist, conservatives are bigots, conservatives only care about the wealthy, etc etc. 

It doesn’t help matters that conservatives have managed to choose a leader that embodies all of these stereotypes. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

Hey Jon, just curious on this, you still taking questions? 

[jon_mx 8,654]

2 hours ago, Glass Joe said:

You are putting a spin on her history - yes she was given a push by a PAC that was looking for new faces. But the implication that she was simply a face, and had no political beliefs or involvement is incorrect. She certainly comes with a viewpoint, she’s not divorced from the ideas she espouses.

While idealism often isn’t realistic, aren’t dreamers a good thing in general, pushing envelopes, pushing us to think differently? I think you need them. My question for you - is why have you jumped in on the hate-fest? You spend emotional energy on her, when the monster in charge is doing far worse than she is capable of.

No spin at all. Suggesting they just gave her a little push is laughable.  Fact:  They had a massive recruiting campaign with over 11,000 applicants.   Fact:. Her brother applied for her.  Fact:. They made her adopt their full agenda.  Fact:. They staffed up her campaign.  Fact:. They did the fund raising for her.  Fact:. They got her tons of free promotion on progressive media.  Her job was to show up.  Granted she probably in tune with much of their agenda, but if ever there was a puppet candidate, she would win the prize.  

[timschochet 31,082]

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

No spin at all.

 

 

if ever there was a puppet candidate, 

These two parts of your post caught my eye. They seem to be at odds. 

[jon_mx 8,654]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hey Jon, just curious on this, you still taking questions? 

She is a better person than Trump.  What was your point.  

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

No spin at all. Suggesting they just gave her a little push is laughable.  Fact:  They had a massive recruiting campaign with over 11,000 applicants.   Fact:. Her brother applied for her.  Fact:. They made her adopt their full agenda.  Fact:. They staffed up her campaign.  Fact:. They did the fund raising for her.  Fact:. They got her tons of free promotion on progressive media.  Her job was to show up.  Granted she probably in tune with much of their agenda, but if ever there was a puppet candidate, she would win the prize.  

I must be missing something. This sounds like local politics here. I hate it personally as a rule but this is the way it works. And really usually HOR district races are  just local pols getting promoted up. That wasn't Cortez but someone like her winning a city or state race district wide would not be unheard of. It's funny what conservatives focus on these days. I don't understand why the focus isn't on the demographics in the district changing. As good as her ads were and as charismatic as she was I think that was the biggest factor in her running, getting support and winning.

Edited April 29, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[SaintsInDome2006 47,397]

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

She is a better person than Trump.  What was your point.  

I'm just asking you what you meant. Do you mind responding? It's just a polite request for you to unpack it. You obviously don't have to.

- eta - To be clear I mean the earlier statement, "She is very reluctant to ever imply anything bad about people of color or POC as she likes to say.   But she has no issue with saying the most condemning things about white nationals and painting with a broad brush." - Not the other stuff with the Trump comp.

- eta2 - What did you mean by "white nationals" especially? Thanks.

Edited April 29, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,240]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re absolutely right: for years liberals and leftists have argued, mostly unfairly, that conservatives are racist, conservatives are bigots, conservatives only care about the wealthy, etc etc. 

It doesn’t help matters that conservatives have managed to choose a leader that embodies all of these stereotypes. 

I would be more comfortable in saying the Republicans have chosen such a leader as I do not believe that conservatives, not true conservatives, have.  That is, of course an argument which has flown.  The language drifts, and the idea of conservatism has drifted quite a bit.  It started when Reagan courted Falwell and his evangelicals, and there is no stopping it now, I suppose. 

 

Frankly I am uncertain how I would label Trump's base.  I have heard Nativist offered, Isolationist, xenophobes.  I guess no one word label ever fully captures any political stance or movement.  Maybe it comes down to just that, stance or movement. Some stand fast and some are capable or movement, intellectually I mean.

[timschochet 31,082]

Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would be more comfortable in saying the Republicans have chosen such a leader as I do not believe that conservatives, not true conservatives, have.  That is, of course an argument which has flown.  The language drifts, and the idea of conservatism has drifted quite a bit.  It started when Reagan courted Falwell and his evangelicals, and there is no stopping it now, I suppose. 

 

Frankly I am uncertain how I would label Trump's base.  I have heard Nativist offered, Isolationist, xenophobes.  I guess no one word label ever fully captures any political stance or movement.  Maybe it comes down to just that, stance or movement. Some stand fast and some are capable or movement, intellectually I mean.

I agree with you on this too. But after months of several people here angrily taking me to task for asserting that they are not true conservatives, I’ve given up. If they want the moniker that badly, let them have it. 

[jon_mx 8,654]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

These two parts of your post caught my eye. They seem to be at odds. 

Not really.  I caveated it with if.  The left always accused Reagan and W of being puppets, but they were their own men.  Reagan especially crafted his own message and agenda.   AOC was propped up more than any candidate in history that I am aware of.