|
Post by celawson on Jul 21, 2018 21:53:52 GMT -5
You do realize that it's very likely you (and a lot of other people) are defending her even though she's really not your kind of candidate at all (you certainly don't seem like the socialist type) because her backstory tugged at your heartstrings and you want her to succeed.
She's playing you all like a fiddle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 22:33:51 GMT -5
Alternatively, we're defending her because your accusations are ridiculously exaggerated, inaccurate, biased, and unjust and you just keep doubling down on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 22:38:57 GMT -5
Here's something I sometimes think you just don't grok, c.e. --
For some of us, not everything comes down to party loyalty or personal feels.
ETA:
For instance, here, you know I'm not a socialist, so I must be defending Ms. O-C on personal grounds. Because it can't just be that I think your arguments are bad, and I feel some compulsion to defend what I believe to be the truth, merely for the sake of simple justice and the principle of the thing.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 22, 2018 0:28:58 GMT -5
One truth is that she lived in Yorktown from the age of 5 to at least 18, and her bio purposely gives the impression that she lived in the Bronx her entire childhood. She has already changed her bio at least once, due to criticism of this point, and it still doesn't say she ever lived in Yorktown. Where she lived for 13 years. But if that's your truth and your accuracy, then I guess you and I have different truths and accuracy. Now she added the word "extended" before family, but it still doesn't say she lived in Yorktown. www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/06/alexandra-ocasio-cortez-updates-bio-after-residency-questions/761456002/ It bugs me because this sort of bio is very important for her success in getting working class people to join in her movement. You know - the revolution. Living in Yorktown for 13 years really messes up that narrative. I don't particularly like being bashed like I have been in this thread. I may post something defending myself in that Political Climate thread I started a while back so I don't take up more space here. When people argue good points, I will accept them (and even like a post like I did yours). But I'm not a punching bag, and I'm not going to let fallacies or personal attacks (and there were plenty of both in this thread) change my mind on things.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 22, 2018 2:51:08 GMT -5
You do realize that I can find your criticism baseless and pointless WITHOUT defending her? Look: She's a terrible candidate and most likely in over her head AND you're criticism of her biography is pointless and stupid. Kinda awesome how that is totally not an either/or proposition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:54:41 GMT -5
I don't particularly like being bashed like I have been in this thread. I may post something defending myself in that Political Climate thread I started a while back so I don't take up more space here. When people argue good points, I will accept them (and even like a post like I did yours). But I'm not a punching bag, and I'm not going to let fallacies or personal attacks (and there were plenty of both in this thread) change my mind on things. Post away. You know what's fun? You are very sensitive to what you see as personal attacks and fallacies directed at you and your arguments. But you are utterly oblivious to your own glaring ones. Let's take a look at your last post, shall we? You do realize that it's very likely you (and a lot of other people) are defending her even though she's really not your kind of candidate at all (you certainly don't seem like the socialist type) because her backstory tugged at your heartstrings and you want her to succeed. She's playing you all like a fiddle. Initially, your post stated that I was making these arguments because Ms. O-C's background resembled my own. Yes, I saw it before you edited it. I'm glad you changed it because that was really especially fucking annoying. But still, taking that aside, and just taking your post on its current face -- rather than addressing my arguments (or answering the questions I posted to you) in my previous post, you pivoted to saying I was only making those arguments, and all my arguments, because I was "played like a fiddle" emotionally, manipulated and thus duped, and so were the rest of us arguing the same point. Unlike clear-sighted you and the right-wing media, who see the truth. That's a goddamn argument fallacy of the first order, c.e. And you've made similar ones in the past. I actually started citing some examples, but this thread has been derailed enough. If you decide to complain of your persecution in your other thread, I'll do it there. Though I can't resist pointing out the delicious irony that in that thread, you lectured us all about imputing evil to others with different political beliefs -- and here you are doing it with Ms. O-C, based on this pathetic, flimsy cardhouse of assertions -- and more or less acknowledge that you are doing so because she is a socialist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:57:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:57:55 GMT -5
I will also observe that Ms. O-C still doesn't seem to know beans about economics, despite her degree.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 22, 2018 8:29:58 GMT -5
I actually DO believe in her sincerity and good intentions. I don't think she's nefarious at all. But I don't think she was quite ready to be a Congresswoman yet. (It's actually rather amusing that I'm spending this much time defending her. She's really not my kind of candidate at all--I'm big on experience and I certainly demand that candidates have a plan for how they'd pay for their ideas and get them off the ground. But yeah, I do think she's earnest and well-intentioned.) An aside: I think a fair chunk of people--certainly more than half, perhaps considerably more--enter politics with "good" intentions. That includes people whose intentions might be characterized as stupid or foolish by some (for instance, people who don't like Ms. O-C's socialist leanings, or--going back a bit--people who thought the tea party crowd were fools). But I also think that 1) the Peter Principle is basically correct, and 2) power tends to corrupt. So what we get--over time--are people who run for offices like Congresscritter, win, but aren't really up for the gig. Yet, they become entrenched as long as they can maintain their relationship with their base and can deliver a little pork. Over time, that becomes their primary goal--staying in office--especially because of the perks they get. Flash forward twenty years. Will Ms. O-C be a flash in the pan? Will she rise up to higher offices? Or will she become just another clueless entrenched politico in D.C.? OR--and this is the dream--will she serve some terms, do some solid work, then move on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 8:56:09 GMT -5
I actually DO believe in her sincerity and good intentions. I don't think she's nefarious at all. But I don't think she was quite ready to be a Congresswoman yet. (It's actually rather amusing that I'm spending this much time defending her. She's really not my kind of candidate at all--I'm big on experience and I certainly demand that candidates have a plan for how they'd pay for their ideas and get them off the ground. But yeah, I do think she's earnest and well-intentioned.) An aside: I think a fair chunk of people--certainly more than half, perhaps considerably more--enter politics with "good" intentions. That includes people whose intentions might be characterized as stupid or foolish by some (for instance, people who don't like Ms. O-C's socialist leanings, or--going back a bit--people who thought the tea party crowd were fools). But I also think that 1) the Peter Principle is basically correct, and 2) power tends to corrupt. So what we get--over time--are people who run for offices like Congresscritter, win, but aren't really up for the gig. Yet, they become entrenched as long as they can maintain their relationship with their base and can deliver a little pork. Over time, that becomes their primary goal--staying in office--especially because of the perks they get. Flash forward twenty years. Will Ms. O-C be a flash in the pan? Will she rise up to higher offices? Or will she become just another clueless entrenched politico in D.C.? OR--and this is the dream--will she serve some terms, do some solid work, then move on? I agree with this. And I agree with "both sides" with regard to it as well, or rather "all sides" -- I think it's very, very common, especially for earnest neophytes, to go into politics (or really, anything) with absolutely the best, most idealistic (if possibly underinformed and uneducated) intentions, and then become corrupted, or jaded, or prove themselves utterly inept despite their good intentions, or learn that, however good their intentions were, their ideas were simply bad. I don't for a minute dispute that this may well happen with Ms. O-C. Only time will tell us whether she evolves into a better-informed congresswoman who does some solid work for her constituents, or becomes an embarrassing failure, or becomes jaded and abandons her good intentions for personal gain. The only thing I argue here is that from what I've seen of her, I see no evidence at all of malignant intentions, and plenty of evidence that, on the contrary, she's just giddy with hopes that she'll transform the lives of her constituents for the better. (Doesn't mean that's how it will pan out, of course.) It's also quite possible her political views will shift considerably, especially since she's quite young and inexperienced. My own views certainly shifted over my twenties -- as a large part due to my exposure in law school to a variety of well-argued views from educated, supremely bright, well-informed people. True for many others as well -- e.g., I knew Van Jones back in the day from law school, and let's just say he's evolved considerably since then, as has Kris Kobach, whom I also knew. Van has moved much closer to the center, as have I, actually -- he was further left than Ms. O-C, and militant about it in a way she is not. Kris has moved way off to the right (or whatever it is the populist Trumpians are, which has little in common, IMO, with William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan) -- I recall him as being quite conservative, but of an intellectual stripe, not the whackadoodle populist stripe he now sports. I've been astounded to see his shenanigans on the voting stuff -- badly motivated, badly implemented, badly argued, badly done all round. So yeah, people's political views evolve, especially young people's. ETA: Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl. Trump was a pro-choice Democrat. People's views often do evolve. The younger and less experienced they are, the more likely that is to occur. I am NOT saying "oh, vote for the young'n with the uninformed views because she might change!" Not. Quite the opposite -- it's part of why I favor more experienced candidates with a track record you can assess to see what have they stood for, and what have they done to demonstrate it and implement their views. That's why I would have voted for the incumbent here. But I do agree with Rob that it's hard to make much of a prediction here of how Ms. O-C is going to pan out. I think the fawning "oh, she'll be a superstar" views are preposterous, for the record. But I also think it's ridiculous to paint her as this grave socialist danger who will bring down capitalism, or as a deceptive manipulating swamp beast who has fleeced her constituents already with her fake sob stories. She's a very young, enthusiastic person without experience or economic expertise who stumped door to door and pulled out an election win in a far-left district. That's about all we can say. We'll see what happens. For the record, if such a person won the presidency or became governor of New York, I'd be much, much, much more concerned at her inexperience, etc. ETA: And I also think it's overblown to see this primary win as "oh, duh Dems are gonna try to put in people like this all over the country!" Um, yeah. Not. This district looks nothing at all like most districts, and it's not in the least surprising the constituents there related to her, plus the incumbent made the fatal mistake of assuming he was a shoo-in. We may well see some other candidates like her, but whatever Bernie Sanders may hope and think, we're also going to see a pile of Conor Lambs, and they are the ones who are likely to carry the day in more moderate districts.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 22, 2018 11:29:25 GMT -5
I don't remember writing that and editing it out, but if I did, so what? You stated your background had some similarities. How does that exclude tugging at your heartstrings? In fact, it may even make it easier for you to like her for it, you know, empathy and all that.
Congrats on having a different opinion than mine. Doesn't mean it's right. It's an opinion. If she's "a terrible candidate and in over her head" yet she's become a political darling in large part because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not) -- and you know as well as I do that identity politics is huge with the left these days -- and she gets to congress largely because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not), then what's stupid is voting for someone because of her bio. Which a lot of people are doing.
Tell me this - if she was raised in a wealthy family in Manhattan and attended ivy league schools and actually knew something about economics (but was still a socialist), would she be the political darling and media darling that she is? Would Cassandra be chuckling lovingly when Ocasio makes a political gaffe on TV if she were male and rich? IF your answer is "probably not", which mine is, then yeah, her bio is not so pointless and stupid. And if her bio is not so pointless and stupid, then criticizing her stretching truth or omitting truth in her bio might also not pointless and stupid. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 22, 2018 11:35:42 GMT -5
It's also quite possible her political views will shift considerably, especially since she's quite young and inexperienced. My own views certainly shifted over my twenties -- as a large part due to my exposure in law school to a variety of well-argued views from educated, supremely bright, well-informed people. True for many others as well -- e.g., I knew Van Jones back in the day from law school, and let's just say he's evolved considerably since then, as has Kris Kobach, whom I also knew. Van has moved much closer to the center, as have I, actually -- he was further left than Ms. O-C, and militant about it in a way she is not. Kris has moved way off to the right (or whatever it is the populist Trumpians are, which has little in common, IMO, with William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan) -- I recall him as being quite conservative, but of an intellectual stripe, not the whackadoodle populist stripe he now sports. I've been astounded to see his shenanigans on the voting stuff -- badly motivated, badly implemented, badly argued, badly done all round. So yeah, people's political views evolve, especially young people's. ETA: Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl. Trump was a pro-choice Democrat. People's views often do evolve. The younger and less experienced they are, the more likely that is to occur. I've always found it funny that despite the fact a person's views do and should evolve a large part of all campaigns is playing "GOTCHA!" with politicians flip-flopping on certain positions. As if someone's views or mind changing over the course of time is a bad thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 11:36:12 GMT -5
I don't remember writing that and editing it out, but if I did, so what? You stated your background had some similarities. How does that exclude tugging at your heartstrings? In fact, it may even make it easier for you to like her for it, you know, empathy and all that. Congrats on having a different opinion than mine. Doesn't mean it's right. It's an opinion. If she's "a terrible candidate and in over her head" yet she's become a political darling in large part because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not) -- and you know as well as I do that identity politics is huge with the left these days -- and she gets to congress largely because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not), then what's stupid is voting for someone because of her bio. Which a lot of people are doing. Tell me this - if she was raised in a wealthy family in Manhattan and attended ivy league schools and actually knew something about economics (but was still a socialist), would she be the political darling and media darling that she is? Would Cassandra be chuckling lovingly when Ocasio makes a political gaffe on TV if she were male and rich? IF your answer is "probably not", which mine is, then yeah, her bio is not so pointless and stupid. And if her bio is not so pointless and stupid, then criticizing her stretching truth or omitting truth in her bio might also not pointless and stupid. IMO. "Hold my beer while I double down on my argument fallacy!" "If everything about Ocasio-Cortez were completely and totally different than it actually is, would other things also possibly be different and thus my argument perhaps conceivably have merit?"
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 22, 2018 11:39:30 GMT -5
If she's "a terrible candidate and in over her head" yet she's become a political darling in large part because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not) -- and you know as well as I do that identity politics is huge with the left these days -- and she gets to congress largely because of her 'working class' background and Bronx childhood (not), then what's stupid is voting for someone because of her bio. Which a lot of people are doing. I'm pretty sure you don't have once piece of proof to back up those assumptions...... I'm also pretty sure I don't have to point out the saying concerning what happens when you assume.... I really have no clue what might be in the woulda-coulda-shoulda world. Neither do you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 11:43:31 GMT -5
It's also quite possible her political views will shift considerably, especially since she's quite young and inexperienced. My own views certainly shifted over my twenties -- as a large part due to my exposure in law school to a variety of well-argued views from educated, supremely bright, well-informed people. True for many others as well -- e.g., I knew Van Jones back in the day from law school, and let's just say he's evolved considerably since then, as has Kris Kobach, whom I also knew. Van has moved much closer to the center, as have I, actually -- he was further left than Ms. O-C, and militant about it in a way she is not. Kris has moved way off to the right (or whatever it is the populist Trumpians are, which has little in common, IMO, with William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan) -- I recall him as being quite conservative, but of an intellectual stripe, not the whackadoodle populist stripe he now sports. I've been astounded to see his shenanigans on the voting stuff -- badly motivated, badly implemented, badly argued, badly done all round. So yeah, people's political views evolve, especially young people's. ETA: Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl. Trump was a pro-choice Democrat. People's views often do evolve. The younger and less experienced they are, the more likely that is to occur. I've always found it funny that despite the fact a person's views do and should evolve a large part of all campaigns is playing "GOTCHA!" with politicians flip-flopping on certain positions. As if someone's views or mind changing over the course of time is a bad thing. Derail/ I totally agree with this. When a politician (or anyone) switches views, the question should be "why?" If they became convinced by evidence/rational arguments that their previous positions were flawed, and change their views for that reason, that's one thing. They SHOULD change their position in that event. And if they are a politician, they have a responsibility to do so rather than doubling down on (what they now believe to be) harmful policies. If they do it for pure partisan advantage, personal gain, fear of kompromat or what have you, that's quite another. ETA: Lots of prominent politicians have switched parties as well as views. Sometimes that's because their own view of things changed, and sometimes it's because the party shifted and left them behind. E.g., Ronald Reagan was at one time a Democrat. [He became a Republican because he felt at the time the Democratic platform had shifted and he was closer to what was then the Republican platform. That makes perfect sense. People have done that in both directions, or have ditched them both and become independent, and if you are doing it because your views match that party's platform rather than the other party's or don't match either, well, okay. Right now, we're seeing a pile of long-time prominent Republicans walking away from their party because they feel it has changed, and they haven't. See, e.g., Steve Schmidt and Max Boot. c.e. has opined that they are party traitors. I think they are being faithful to their political principles, rather than the mere name of their party, which they feel has abandoned those principles. I have to wonder what Reagan would do if he were around today. E.g., he called Russia "the evil empire". He told Gorbachev "Tear down that wall!" On healthcare, he opined " “as one conservative let me say any person in the United States who requires medical attention and cannot provide it for himself should have it provided for him. Immigration-wise, he was pro-open borders, far more so than the Democratic party today. Watch this, FFS -- Does that sound like the Trump administration and the Republican party today? No way to know, of course, but given his views and given his willingness to switch parties to be in accord with them, I think Reagan likely would have been an adamant NeverTrumper and quite possibly crossed back to being a moderate Democrat, or at least an independent. ( To note, GHWB voted Hillary in this last election.) At any rate, I see pretty much zero merit in defending everything a party does and sticking to it no matter what because Loyalty to Muh Party! /End derail
|
|