Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

1) You'd have to tell me what this background is that is 'given'

2) Why should I assume such a background automatically imbues her ( or anyone else) with knowledge of the issues?

3) And even if I were to agree to the unproven above, knowing the issues doesn't in anyway suppose you know what measures will alleviate those problems.

It's on this critical and all important 3rd point that I try to settle in and discuss the specifics. If you were so inclined to.

As opposed to not having the first clue about the issues facing the majority of voters? As opposed to being insulated from the issues due to a lifelong lack of consequences because of vast inherited wealth?

Understanding a problem is the first and pivotal step in being able to formulate an effective solution. If you don't understand a problem you end up either ignoring it because you don't see it as a problem, or end up throwing money down the drain trying to fix it.

I know people who don't understand the first thing about living in a Council flat with a smack-head as a neighbour, but they seem to think they know how to fix the drug problem. I know people who've never had to worry about being evicted due to circumstances outside of their control, but they think they know how to solve the housing crisis.

Spoiler alert: they don't have a clue.

The US government needs people such as AOC because of her experience, and people supporting her who know how the system works.

 

[Dax777]

I'd like to jump in, at this point.

Politicians with a grasp of knowledge of what's what, are far and few between, that get to run the country. In my lifetime Bush Sr, Clinton and Obama are some of the very few that managed that and only two of those were brilliant orators, capable of convincing a set of people that their way was the right way and the rest only needed the latter skill.
Qlne0

AOC has the latter skill in abundance. Whilst she, clearly, has the intellect, she has a gap of knowledge of how the shark tank of Washington works and that is what we're seeing when she


















makes mistakes.

But, as all good individuals know, they need a better team behind them.

She has that with the 'Justice Democrats', Sen. Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna and other Progressives in her corner.

I agree she has a team or backers in the Justice Democrats. And I appreciate the expressing of their viewpoint in the political space. I also think she is often well managed by her handlers. They pick friendly, comfortable unchallenging interviews for her.

In terms of ability to speak to people or connect with them. Yeah, I'll grant that you might be right there, she does.But that is not to say what she is saying makes sense (I'll return to this later.)

As for her backers, I agree with them on a few things but on others I find that the claims they hold as universal truths are exactly the very points in need of rigorous discussion.

For example, I agree that there should be less money in politics, however depending on how one defines 'money' vs say 'speech' in this new technological age may very well change how we view the influence of both money and speech.

On their 25 point manifesto I found myself agreeing generally with 3 points, disagreeing with 7 and think the other 15 are points that require further discussion as opposed to blind support and forcing through legislative actions.

But I digress and return to AOC. From these discussions I now agree that l should refrain from comparing her to Trump. A man who is oftendemonstrably despicable for no good reason. And thus draws the ire of most in the public space.

So, if I may, I'd like to amend my claim to AOC is more like the Sarah Palin of the left.

Now that's a comparison I can stand behind without feeling guilty of Trumpyfing anyone :)

 

[Dax777]

As opposed to not having the first clue about the issues facing the majority of voters? As opposed to being insulated from the issues due to a lifelong lack of consequences because of vast inherited wealth?

Understanding a problem is the first and pivotal step in being able to formulate an effective solution. If you don't understand a problem you end up either ignoring it because you don't see it as a problem, or end up throwing money down the drain trying to fix it.

I know people who don't understand the first thing about living in a Council flat with a smack-head as a neighbour, but they seem to think they know how to fix the drug problem. I know people who've never had to worry about being evicted due to circumstances outside of their control, but they think they know how to solve the housing crisis.

Spoiler alert: they don't have a clue.

The US government needs people such as AOC because of her experience, and people supporting her who know how the system works.

What experience in particular are you refering to?

And just because someone did not personally suffer from a situation doesn't mean they don't know how to fix it. This is one of those silly tropes that often gets thrown around. An orthopedic doctor doesn't have to have had a torn ACL to know how to fix it. Also neither is the inverse true. An injured athlete isn't any more skilled at fixing torn ACLs because he is injured.

The obvious point here is that living through something isn't guaranteed to give you the knowledge of how to change or fix it.

Now if someone or group want to theorize about what causes a problem, then experiment about what can solve it, test those experimental theories and conclude whether those theories are right, wrong or needs adjusting, while given due deference to contrary theories and their likely effects on solving the problem, then we will have the beginnings of whst good governing and policy prescription should look like.

But let me return to your point, I don't know what you think AOCs 'experiences are' and I don't know why you think the US needs that in particular. I see no proof of either. But I appreciate that you might.

 

[Bigga]

I agree she has a team or backers in the Justice Democrats. And I appreciate the expressing of their viewpoint in the political space. I also think she is often well managed by her handlers. They pick friendly, comfortable unchallenging interviews for her.

In terms of ability to speak to people or connect with them. Yeah, I'll grant that you might be right there, she does.But that is not to say what she is saying makes sense (I'll return to this later.)

As for her backers, I agree with them on a few things but on others I find that the claims they hold as universal truths are exactly the very points in need of rigorous discussion.

For example, I agree that there should be less money in politics, however depending on how one defines 'money' vs say 'speech' in this new technological age may very well change how we view the influence of both money and speech.

On their 25 point manifesto I found myself agreeing generally with 3 points, disagreeing with 7 and think the other 15 are points that require further discussion as opposed to blind support and forcing through legislative actions.

But I digress and return to AOC. From these discussions I now agree that l should refrain from comparing her to Trump. A man who is oftendemonstrably despicable for no good reason. And thus draws the ire of most in the public space.

So, if I may, I'd like to amend my claim to AOC is more like the Sarah Palin of the left.

Now that's a comparison I can stand behind without feeling guilty of Trumpyfing anyone :)

Wow. I actually don't know which is the worse insult. Both Palin and #45 know bo-diddley-squat about sh*t.

Didn't Palin relate to herself as 'a pig wearing lipstick'? I may be wrong, but I cannot be bothered searching for anything that dumb arse has said.

Now, what would be comparable, would be if any of those poor choices has actually brought anything up that's POSITIVE enough to start nationwide debate. So, you tell me!

Now, back to your other point about "money and speech". I have said on a few occasions a politician cannot serve two masters, so if said politician is tempted by wealth enough to give big companies a friendlier support than the constituent that that politician represents, they're in the wrong job.

Stephen Colbert actually started this trend as a joke on 'The Colbert Report', but logic should dictate that 'corporations are NOT people, too'.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

What experience in particular are you refering to?

And just because someone did not personally suffer from s situation doesn't mean the don't know how to fix it. This is one of those silly tropes that often gets thrown around. An orthopedic doctor doesn't have to have had a torn ACL to know how to fix it. Also neither is the inverse true. An injured athlete isn't any more skilled at fixing torn ACLs because he is injured.

The obvious point here is that learning what the problem is, theorizing about what causes is, experimenting about what can solve it, testing those experimental theories and concluding whether your theories are right, wrong or needs adjusting, while given due credence to contrary theories and their likely effects is what good governing and policy prescription should look like.

But let me return to your point, I don't know what you think AOCs 'experiences are' and I don't know why you think the US needs that in particular. I see no proof of either. But I appreciate that you might.

Working 18-hour shifts as a bar tender in order to earn enough money to help her mother avoid foreclosure on her house is an important life-experience which can't be learned from a text book. It gives a level of insight and understanding about the way nearly 80% of US workers live paycheque to paycheque.

An orthopaedic doctor learning to fix an ACL injury starts with a text book, and learns from experience of assisting/performing surgeries. The best surgeons have years of real-world experience, without having to have experienced the injury themselves.

You simply can't begin to understand living on the edge of poverty from a text book or theorising because you don't have the same level of peril attached to the consequences of getting it wrong.

 

[Dax777]

Wow. I actually don't know which is the worse insult. Both Palin and #45 know bo-diddley-squat about sh*t.

Didn't Palin relate to herself as 'a pig wearing lipstick'? I may be wrong, but I cannot be bothered searching for anything that dumb arse has said.

Now, what would be comparable, would be if any of those poor choices has actually brought anything up that's POSITIVE enough to start nationwide debate. So, you tell me!

Now, back to your other point about "money and speech". I have said on a few occasions a politician cannot serve two masters, so if said politician is tempted by wealth enough to give big companies a friendlier support than the constituent that that politician represents, they're in the wrong job.

Stephen Colbert actually started this trend as a joke on 'The Colbert Report', but logic should dictate that 'corporations are NOT people, too'.

"Lipstick on a pig" was an Obama line in 2007 refering to the McCain/Palin policy position. It came on the hills of Palin saying "the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull was lipstick."

I agreed with Obama here that the comments weren't sexist. Albeit, they were riske and purposely used on the hill of Palin's original comment.

This kind of claims Liberals can get away with but Conservatives would have been killed if it had been the other way around. Another in highlighting the different treatment of conservatives and Liberals generally in the media.

As for Palin, I agree she wasn't very knowledgeable about issues nationally, hence why I think she is a good comparison to AOC who equally isn't very knowledgeable about the issues.

But I'd caution that you don't let the image of 'the idiot from Wasilla' that was often painted in the media taint your veiw of Palin. Regardless of whether you oppose her politics or not, she did show sserious Moxy rising to Governorship in Alaska without connections. Not to mention many stands on principle even and especially against her religious base.

As for bringing up something 'Positive' enough to start a nation wide debate on, I'd say the word 'positive' here is a function of ones pre-existing positions. So no I doubt you'd think she has, but neither would those who don't find AOCs politics Alluring will think AOC has either.

 

[Bigga]

"Lipstick on a pig" was an Obama line in 2007 refering to the McCain/Palin policy position. It came on the hills of Palin saying "the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull was lipstick."

I agreed with Obama here that the comments weren't sexist. Albeit, they were riske and purposely used on the hill of Palin's original comment.

This kind of claims Liberals can get away with but Conservatives would have been killed if it had been the other way around. Another in highlighting the different treatment of conservatives and Liberals generally in the media.

As for Palin, I agree she wasn't very knowledgeable about issues nationally, hence why I think she is a good comparison to AOC who equally isn't very knowledgeable about the issues.

But I'd caution that you don't let the image of 'the idiot from Wasilla' that was often painted in the media taint your veiw of Palin. Regardless of whether you oppose her politics or not, she did show sserious Moxy rising to Governorship in Alaska without connections. Not to mention many stands on principle even and especially against her religious base.

As for bringing up something 'Positive' enough to start a nation wide debate on, I'd say the word 'positive' here is a function of ones pre-existing positions. So no I doubt you'd think she has, but neither would those who don't find AOCs politics Alluring will think AOC has either.

90% of your post is about Palin and you danced your way around citing any positive talking points the woman, who has spent almost years in the spotlight, has made.

Ocasio-Cortez has been in the public eye since Nov (I only knew of her earlier in the year through the Progressive media I've seen) and has ALREADY been brave enough to publicly disagree with Pelosi and start a national debate on how her nation has to change to a 'green' economy to lessen the strain on the earth for future generations not to live through the mess of fossil fuel economics.

I think that's foresight, I think that's caring for the future, not for self.

And now, many more people are taking this into account when thinking about their future.

Positive.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Stephen Colbert actually started this trend as a joke on 'The Colbert Report', but logic should dictate that 'corporations are NOT people, too'.

Logic vs SCOTUS...SCOTUS (& $$$$) won!!

 

[Dax777]

Working 18-hour shifts as a bar tender in order to earn enough money to help her mother avoid foreclosure on her house is an important life-experience which can't be learned from a text book. It gives a level of insight and understanding about the way nearly 80% of look workers live paycheque to paycheque.

An orthopaedic doctor learning to fix an ACL injury starts with a text book, and learns from experience of assisting/performing surgeries. The best surgeons have years of real-world experience, without having to have experienced the injury themselves.
You simply can't begin to understand living on the edge of poverty from a text book or theorising because you don't have the same level of peril attached to the consequences of getting it wrong.

I'll address this in 2 parts: first the problem with your analogy, and 2) as it relates to AOC and her story/experience.

The first is obvious, the experience required is at actually 'fixing the problem' NOT 'experiencing the priblem.' You do not get perspective on how to fix ACLs because you once 'experienced ACL injuries.' This is a clear distinction between A and B.

Your belief in AOC stems from her 'experiencing the problem' as opposed to her experience of having 'fixed the problem' before.

 

[Dax777]

90% of your post is about Palin and you danced your way around citing any positive talking points the woman, who has spent almost years in the spotlight, has made.

Ocasio-Cortez has been in the public eye since Nov (I only knew of her earlier in the year through the Progressive media I've seen) and has ALREADY been brave enough to publicly disagree with Pelosi and start a national debate on how her nation has to change to a 'green' economy to lessen the strain on the earth for future generations not to live through the mess of fossil fuel economics.

I think that's foresight, I think that's caring for the future, not for self.

And now, many more people are taking this into account when thinking about their future.

Positive.

on the Contrary the only paragraph 5 focused on Palin and even that was an attempt to implore you to research 'Palin standing on Principles'. Sarah Palin Wikipedia would be a decent start.

Again, positive is simply in the eyes of the beholder. Would I call Occasio pushing Justice Democrats 'Green Agenda' positive? Erh! I guess in that at least it spurred discussion. Would I consider it a sign of caring for the future? Not really. More a sign of AOC caring about her popularity. As I know and you know that AOC knows that plan isn't going anywhere.

As for her challenging Pelosi: Do you think that's positive? I'm not sure how much you know about the Justice Democrats: Kyle, Cenk, Zack and those folks. But the whole movement started as a copycat reaction to Trump's victory just like the Tea Party flank of the Rebuplican started in response to Obama's election.

The Justice Democrats took a play out of the Tea Party playbook by pledging to Primary 'Corporate Democrats' just like the Tea Party Republican pledge in 2010 to Primary RiNOs (Republicans in Name Only i.e centrist and reasonable Republicans) back thrn.

AOC and her crew of Radical Democrats challenging Pelosi is a salute to the Freedom Caucus crew (the victorious members of the TeaParty primariyng) who challenged John Boehner and thwarted any attempts he made at compromise btw 2013-2015 when he finally resigned out of frustration from dealing with those guys. I'm sure Ro, Raul, Pamila and the quadruplets are hoping to become the Democratic version of the Freedom Crew. A sad day for us is coming if you ask me.

This might be a feather in AOC's radical cap, but it's harmful to governing as a whole. I mean why do you think Congress has been getting less effective the last 10 years. Because radical Leftist and radical rightists have been primariyng reasonable Democrats and Republicans, and we are being left with people who lack the common sense required to compromise on issues.

Apologies for the longwinded history lesson. I guess topics I discuss often seem to bleed into each other here. :)