Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 22:23:55 GMT -5
All onions are smarter than Michael Cohen, Haggis. Not all onions went to Thomas Cooley Law School, Cassyface. That's why most onions are better lawyers than Michael Cohen, Haggis. And that's Cassy McCassface, please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 22:30:49 GMT -5
Since we're on a new page, I'd just like to take this opportunity to note that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez still doesn't know beans about economics.
Also, this:
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jul 22, 2018 22:33:07 GMT -5
Seriously, though, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know beans about economics. I can see her undergraduate studies being a tad fuzzy after a number of years out of school (she may not have touched the subject since), but she really should have brushed up before she started babbling on about them as a candidate. The constituents in her district won't care, most likely, but I do. (I'm not all worked up about it, given all the rest of the shit happening at the moment, but I do care -- I like well-informed candidates.) She's gonna win the general election, regardless. Still, though she won't need it to win, she should brush up now so she'll be a better congresswoman and hold her own better among her colleagues. And for her own sake, as well. The fawning stuff (which actually I think is largely because she's so young and cute and bubbly, and the pundits weren't expecting her to win) won't last forever -- it would behoove her to get a tad more solid before the gloss wears off. This seems like a good place to mention that I'm not much of a Bernie Sanders fan, and grow less of one as time goes on. I groaned for several reasons when I saw that video Bernie tweeted. I should also note -- the constituents in her district are not red-hot Marxists who are all about communist values. I doubt they know much about socialism or communism, most of them, and I'll bet they also wouldn't give a technical dictionary definition of working class. What they know and care about is that rich people seem to be getting all the tax breaks while the Powers That Be are talking about taking away their healthcare and benefits, and Ms. O-C thinks that's bad and says she'll do something about it. They know she's Puerto Rican and a bartender and lives in their hood and came door to door to talk to them. The whole "would they buy a socialist who spent formative years in Yorktown" is a total pffft, even if Ms. O-C's background had been more privileged than it was -- she's infinitely closer to their background than the incumbent was, and they liked that. BUT -- if she doesn't live up to her promise to fight for their benefits, healthcare, etc., and against big breaks for the wealthy, etc., some of the charm may start to wear off. Or not. I mean, lots of Trump voters are actively hurting as a direct result of his policies -- e.g., his tariffs. And yet they continue to support him and blame it on the Dems. So perhaps Ms. O-C's constituents will do the same. Things have been getting steadily stupider, it seems, so maybe actual facts don't matter any more. ETA: I'm totally serious about thinking the youngest Congress critter ever!, pretty-n-vivacious, extremely telegenic thing are a large part of the fawning and attention she's getting, perhaps combined with her longshot status -- far more so than her actual politics. Imagine for a moment that she were Alex Ocasio-Cortez, a heavy-set pimply young man without much personality -- but with exactly the same political views, background, and lack of knowledge on economics. Of course we can't know for sure, but I somehow doubt he'd get quite so much fawning press. Even if he were 28, he'd probably get a mention of his being the youngest congress critter ever, and certainly there would be discussion of his longshot win, but I find it hard to imagine he'd get the same level of adoration. That said, I'm also sure that she's going to get plenty of sexist shit directed her way that Alex wouldn't get. I'm sure plenty are scoffing at her as being air-headed (which I don't think she is at all--I think she's smart but not as well-informed and experienced as she should be for her new role). And if and when things go sideways, and/or when the gloss wears off, she's probably going to get more rocks thrown at her than Alex would. (That tends to be the down side of getting lots of fawning attention right off the cuff.) Someone somewhere is already talking about how annoying they think her voice is, and criticizing her wardrobe and hair, and god help her when she puts on five pounds or gets a wrinkle or two because "who wants to watch her age on television" (can't recall who said that about Hillary, but it really pissed me off). For the record, your favorite president was also an undergrad Econ major. From Wharton School. Good genes. Stable genius.I'm sure his daddy's infusion of money into the college had nothing to do with his graduation. Assuming he did graduate.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 23, 2018 3:22:10 GMT -5
Should I call you Mistress, my Queen, or Overlord?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 7:11:42 GMT -5
Should I call you Mistress, my Queen, or Overlord? Oh, I like "Mistress Overlord," myself. It captures your utter subjection to my will in this nefarious criminal organization along with just a hint of light bondage. I need to get you all uniforms.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 23, 2018 11:37:11 GMT -5
c.e.: Cassandra: referring to Ocasio-Cortez' constituents c.e.: Cassandra: c.e.: Cassandra:
c.e.: Cassandra:
We are really not that far off in our views of her. Except I pointed out she omitted some things in her bio and stretched other things in her bio so as to cultivate a more Bronx/working class/hardscrabble background than may have been strictly accurate, in order to garner more support. That was accepted by most everyone here, to a degree. I happen to think her hardscrabble background carries more weight with her constituents than her looks, but Cassandra has a different opinion. Fine. I deny ever saying or implying that she was evil or nefarious for doing so, only that she was not being completely honest, which was the entire focus of my initial post. You who assign nefarious intent to my comments also think I'm assigning nefarious intent to her as a person. I am not. I do think she or whoever wrote her bio (especially the initial version) tweaked it for a certain reason. That's not evil or nefarious. But it's still not honest to write the bio like she lived in the Bronx her whole childhood. It may be petty for me to point that out, and I conceded that. But an assertion being petty doesn't make it untrue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 11:50:22 GMT -5
You are now mixing potatoes and kumquats, c.e.
We weren't arguing whether the media was overly fawning, or whether she knows beans on economics. Sure, we more or less agree on those things.
The thing we have been disagreeing on is whether she materially misrepresented her background, and whether her doing so was why she won. Your answers are yes and yes. Mine are no and no.
(I also don't think she won on her looks, btw, and I don't say that. I think her looks are among the reason the media is giving her so much attention. Notwithstanding the two-bedroom house in Yorktown, she's a classic cinderella story, complete with pretty cinderella, and the media loves that. But the fact that the media is too fawning is something everyone in the thread agrees on, as far as I can see.)
Our argument arose because you opined that she materially misrepresented herself, and that her alleged misrepresentations, had the electorate been aware of them, would have cost her support because, in your opinion, her living in Yorktown and her father having gone to college make her not the Perfect Socialist/Marxist Heroine. I opined pffft to that, because not only do I not think she materially misrepresented herself, and that her constituents were familiar with her and her background, but I also don't think they give less of a shit about whether she was the Perfect Socialist/Marxist Heroine -- as evidenced by the fact that they continue to adore her now, when certainly the house in Yorktown is a well-known fact, and defend her against the "revelations" of the right-wing media.
We are not on the same page about anything except her lack of economic expertise and that the media is too fawning. The speculation over just why the media is too fawning is a side conversation and something we all agree on, as far as I can see. It has nothing to do with whether she exaggerated her background or not, and whether or how it misled the electorate and affected the election.
ETA:
And indeed, given that the house in Yorktown is certainly not a secret now, even if it ever was, and the media fawning continues, it's clear that her alleged misrepresentations are not why the media is fawning. It's her whole package -- the youth, the pretty, the vivaciousness, the upset victory, and yes, the fact that she was far from a privileged young lady (Yorktown notwithstanding). The pretty and vivacious make her more telegenic and appealing as a media darling, as they always do. But there's certainly nothing at all deceptive about that.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 23, 2018 12:17:14 GMT -5
You are somewhat close to being correct about my position. But not quite. I listed several factors that I think contributed to her win. I also said this back on page 3:
And a little later I said this:
I don't believe I ever said she won because she tweaked her bio. BUT....someone, either she or someone on her campaign team, thought it was important to leave out the moving to Yorktown stuff. So I can only assume it's not just c.e. who thinks the closer she is to her Bronx roots, and the more hardscrabble her background, the better her support will be.
Which makes my hypothetical - if she had the same everything except she's rich and knows more about socialism, would she still be the darling (both with her constituents and the media and nationally) that she is, not so fallacious. IMO
EDITED TO ADD: My apologies to the deceased horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 13:48:43 GMT -5
As I just said in response to your other post in the argument fallacy thread: ETA: I'll also agree that if the real O-C had been wealthy and privileged, yet presented herself as impoverished Maria from the barrio, that WOULD have been a material misrepresentation of her background. But that's far from the case. And I'm not at all convinced a woman from a wealthy, privileged background who didn't try to conceal that fact, but had Ms. O-C's exact same platform, stumped door to door talking to people as Ms. O-C did, and (despite her background), had been living in their neighborhood as Ms. O-C did, etc., wouldn't have also defeated the incumbent. Her ethnicity and her background were clearly hugely appealing, but they weren't the only reason she won. I think lots of things about her appealed to her electorate -- it's hard to say what would have happened in the election if you took one of those factors and made it completely different. But what is clear, based on the fact that her voters continue to support and defend her, is that they don't give a rat's ass about the house in Yorktown. And that's what we were arguing about.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 24, 2018 22:24:19 GMT -5
Apologies in advance for getting this train(wreck) back on track, but... Ocasio-Cortez and leftist media provide damning evidence that they're fucking stupid. So, yesterday, Allie Stuckey (who is apparently a blogger who makes political satire and commentary vids for CRTV) released an obvious-to-anyone-who-isn't-a-complete-idiot parody video that was satirizing Ocasio-Cortez's recent disastrous interview referenced in this thread's OP. And several of the leftist corners of the media lost their one-brain-cell minds, claiming that it was a "fake" and "doctored" video spread by the "alt-right" Seriously, here's the vid. There's no way anyone who is not of diaper-wearing age could interpret this as a non-satirical, legitimate attempt at vote-swaying fake news propaganda: And here's how the far-left reacted to it: www.conservativereview.com/news/the-lefts-faux-outrage-over-satirical-crtv-video-is-beyond-parody/And here's Ocasio-Cortez doing her best Fonzie shark jump impression as she also stupidly falls for it: Notice that her tweet is retweeting a supposed political correspondent at the NY Times, who is also apparently a brain dead loon. But, it's not just some schmuck at the NYT and Ocasio-Cortez and a bunch of Twitter trolls whose elevators apparently don't go to the top floor. BuzzFeed "News" also fell for it hook, line, and sinker, characterizing it as a "doctored video" and presenting their story as them having "debunked" it as "fake news." Jesus Christ, these people CAN'T be serious. Elle Magazine went so far as to call in a so-called "video expert" to "break down" the "doctored viral video." The Verge rode in on their SJW white horse to claim that the obvious-to-people-who-don't-mostly-breath-out-of-their-mouths satirical video "blurs the lines between bad satire and fake news", claiming that it is part of the "misinformation" problem currently plaguing social media. But, the only problem I see with misinformation in this case is the fact that people in the press were monumentally stupid enough to allow their mouth-frothing tribalism to over-ride both their intellect and their senses of humor. Just because some other equally stupid people on Facebook and Twitter lacked the cognitive acumen to realize it was a parody, doesn't make this an example of some nefarious republican attempt at mass manipulation. It was a fucking joke. Maybe not a good one, but it's hilarious (in that "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" kind of way) that the same people guffawing all over themselves at Sasha Baron-Cohen fooling a bunch of conservative douchebags, are now clutching their pearls at this vid. There was so much humorless caterwauling by leftists that CRTV (who had originally posted the vid with a description) had to add a disclaimer to the vid totally spelling out to morons that it is satire. I think the Babylon Bee (which is also satire) had the best take on it: Ocasio-Cortez Criticized For Not Clearly Labeling Political Platform As Satire
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 22:51:52 GMT -5
I've been saying this for a while -- satire is fucking dead. I totally agree with you -- it's obvious satire. But to be fair, I've seen this sort of fail on the right, too. (yep, I'm gonna both sides it! I'm doing it for you, Rob). People in general have gotten really shitty at spotting satire. All. The. Freaking. Time. I see things I think are obvious satire, yet a shitload of other people are like "OMG! How would you possibly say such a terrible thing?!" (Then again, maybe this has always been the case? I understand some people took Swift's "A Modest Proposal" seriously, and were outraged that he suggested eating babies.) Anyway, taking that aside, I think part of the reason for the strong reaction in this particular case, alas, is that the satire hit close to the bone. People tend to get angrier at effective satire at their expense than if it misses the mark (unless perhaps there is some other reason to be offended, e.g., the satire is racist or sexist). If it misses the mark entirely, one can shrug. Here, unfortunately, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's none-too-skillful economic utterances left her wide open to satire that hits the mark. Satire or no, she looks clueless on the economic stuff. They could ignore it, try to laugh with the joke, or stamp their feet and say "that's not funny!". In this case, they chose option (d): refuse to accept it as satire (in this case, claiming it's "fake"). But I'm not even sure they're insincere in doing that, to be honest, given how bad people are at recognizing satire. ETA: By the way? I'm gonna bet some on the right also saw that video without context and didn't realize it was satire--somewhere out there, some brain dead people thought it was a real interview. Satire. Dead. People. Stupid. What are you gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 25, 2018 11:45:38 GMT -5
That's funny, and oh-so-obviously satire, I find it unbelievable that anyone with half a brain couldn't identify it as such. Which leads me to believe that most of the sites attacking it as doctored knew full well what it was, but chose to pretend that they didn't in order to manufacture their stories, thus indicating that they believe most of their readers are simpletons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 12:02:54 GMT -5
Alas! Many of their readers may indeed be simpletons. Or at least, have no ability to identify satire. But yes, I join you both in agreeing that this was obvious, and the reaction ridiculously overblown.
-- Cass, who all too often has been excoriated for her cruel, cruel use of incredibly obvious satire.
ETA:
I think this was definitely a case where it would have been far better to either ignore it or laugh along. Politically, you look far more lovable if you laugh along with a joke at your expense (even if you might be inwardly hurt or furious), or if you respond with humor. Also, you minimize the damage done by the joke.
IMO, the overblown reaction by Ms. O-C's supporters emphasized exactly what the joke satirized -- her lack of economic knowledge and experience. She'd really be better off saying, "yes, ha ha, I am not very good at interviews and public speaking yet, and I know I have things to learn. But know that I care deeply about my constituents and I will fight with every atom of my being to improve their lives."
Most people, especially her constituents, would be totally good with such a response. Voters in general often put likeability (or some other emotional factor) above knowledge and experience.
I mean, she didn't win that primary based on either economic knowledge or experience. Same is true for other candidates. We are living in a world where Trump is president, and people are seriously floating names like Kid Rock and Oprah for high political office.
*I* care about knowledge and experience, so I hate this. But in terms of how Ms. O-C should respond, she'd be better off laughing, acknowledging she has much to learn, and doubling down on how much she cares.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 18:05:33 GMT -5
By the way, I must reiterate this: if Ms. O-C became president, with her current level of economic know-how and savvy, I'd be absolutely batshit.
Or if she were the Democratic candidate for president, for that matter. Or the governor of New York. I'd be bouncing off the walls bemoaning it. Seriously, I would. I'd also be upset if the Dems start running tons of candidates who are equally clueless. The only reason I'm not all batshit is because the damage she can do in her current position is more limited, and she has lots of peers to edumacate her and shove her aside if she won't be edumacated.
I have a host of issues with her as a candidate. Pretty much the only things I can say for her at this point is that I think she means well, and she isn't looking to grift, or at least not yet.
And on Trump -- I acknowledge that my primary issue with him on this stuff is not so much his economic ignorance as the way he seems to just act on whims, grudges, etc. I think it's actually rather hard to tell how much he actually knows, to tell you the truth -- what he says and does may not reflect actual knowledge (or truth). A good bit of his policies seem to be about "Obama did this; I'll do the opposite" and/or "this will make the base cheer" or some other motivation that isn't based on sound economic reasoning, constitutional principle, or some other sound intellectual basis.
He could have a PhD in economics, and I'd still deplore that tendency and find it dangerous in a president.
And however much he actually does know, I submit that he frequently says things related to economics that are head-spinningly WTF. Such as "trade wars are good and easy to win" or that since the stock market is still strong, we can risk trade wars because "we're playing with the bank's money."
And taking aside his bluster, I'm not impressed by what his administration has done so far economically. The economy hasn't plummeted yet, but it was strong when he came in--he can't take credit for it. The economy is a big ship and it takes a while for it to turn. I submit that the tax policies enacted in his administration , which haven't boosted the market or economy, as far as I can see, yet have added a trillion to our debt, are not evidence of economic brilliance and are bad in the long term. I think the tariffs are likely to be bad as well. On both counts, we'll have to see.
But the fact is, it's difficult to predict what it is he'll do, on tariffs or anything else, because by and large he seems to act not based on his economic knowhow or expert advice, but on what Fox & Friends says that morning or where the bumblebees in his head sting his cerebral cortex.
Literally nothing he does would surprise me at this point. But if it turns out okay (and certainly, for all of our sakes, I hope it does), I'm not giving him credit for 80-dimensional economic chess because I don't think it's anything of the kind. If you think otherwise, we'll absolutely have to agree to disagree.
So yeah, my main objection to Ms. O-C is her ignorance and inexperience (which of course is reflected in her platform and in her statements). Whereas I actually do think Trump is fairly ignorant on a pile of stuff (more than I did when he became president, frankly, when I had higher hopes for him), but it isn't my major objection. My major objection to him is that he's a narcissistic jackass with the temperament and judgment of a toddler and a long history of grifting. But there, I think, we have some common ground.
My reason for linking the two, as I did in this thread, is to point out that Trump also says things that make economists go "what the holy fuck."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 25, 2018 19:57:49 GMT -5
Oh my. Ocasio-Cortez wants to help "flip this seat Red in November." www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article215287750.htmlThe video was originally posted on Sanders' twitter feed and was quickly deleted after people started pointing out the gaffe. It's obvious that she simply misspoke but this is yet another tell-tale sign that she is woefully unprepared to be running for political office, especially at this level. If her aspirations were truly sincere, she should've started out at the level of city council or maybe even state representative. But, she's truly been a dumpster fire disaster so far (in my opinion). This is the type of situation you get when someone goes from bartender to candidate in less than a year (I say that as a former bartender who, when I tended bar, was also totally unqualified to run for federal public office). Here's a mirror of the video, since Bernie's people deleted it:
|
|