Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 20:00:27 GMT -5
But...but I posted that video on page 4. Doesn't anyone read my posts? I do concur that I'd have preferred Ms. O-C to become more knowledgeable and experienced before running for Congress. While, as I said, it's not like she's governor or President, where she can do lots of broad-scale damage all on her own, I'd still rather have candidates get a bit of local political experience before getting into Congress. Then maybe they might not embarrass themselves like this (watch the video at the link): /video/1 twitter.com/i/status/1020447912487280648Yeah, I know, it's a silly, unimportant little flub, and it's funny, but flubs like that will bring her jeers from the right, and from me, they'll fuel conclusions like this: 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.) But yeah, I agree--I totally cringed. She's in way over her head.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 25, 2018 20:12:33 GMT -5
But...but I posted that video on page 4. Doesn't anyone read my posts? Sorry, I started to skip over a bunch of posts when y'all were just arguing with c.e. for 3 or 4 straight pages. I was also trying to take your advice: If you are bored, you can always skip reading posts and focus your own on the aspects that interest you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 20:19:22 GMT -5
I cannot fault you for that.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 27, 2018 12:03:21 GMT -5
Did anyone watch see Ocasio-Cortez on last night's Daily Show with Trevor Noah? I didn't watch the show, but I did watch a recording of the full interview. Look, I saw the satire video of her the day before you talked about it here, and I didn't mention it here because my first reaction was that it was kind of mean. And you can see on this thread that I haven't pummeled her for the red/blue flub. That is a mistake ANY of us could make, knowledgable about economics or not. And she's so darn likeable in the interview, for the most part. And she does come across as compassionate and committed. But honestly, it makes me very uncomfortable to watch her talk about economics, in a cringe for her sort of way. Noah presses her on how to pay for her policies around the 12 minute mark. I don't think she comes close to realistic numbers to pay for what she is proposing. And in fact, she only mentions how she could come up with the money to pay for a very small part of ONE thing she is proposing (renewable energy) - 2 trillion dollars in TEN years. What about Medicare for all, college tuition for all? And it seems the "Warren Buffet pays lower tax rate than his secretary" stuff has been debunked already, multiple times, by legit sources such as Forbes. www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#72cdde8d3279I don't know enough about this $ stuff to comment much more, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of people here who do, in terms of how did she do answering Trevor's question of how she would pay for her policies? www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-daily-show_us_5b5b2771e4b0de86f49686d8
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2018 21:43:33 GMT -5
Oh boy. It's even more funny if you watch Cuomo's face.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2018 22:22:06 GMT -5
That's pretty weak sauce. How often has Trump (and before him, GWB) been quoted spouting incomprehensible word salad?
Yeah, I think she's kind of ignorant and frankly, comes off as a bit dim when she's not all fired up about The People, but let's not pretend this is anything but partisan cherry-picking.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2018 22:32:38 GMT -5
I'm not pretending anything. But honestly, I wouldn't pick on her if Dems didn't keep calling her the future of their party.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 9, 2018 23:32:40 GMT -5
A bit surprised to see this in Politico, though they do tend to sit closer to center-left than far-left in a lot of their reporting. Seems that they're also seeing Ocasio-Cortez and the "democratic socialist" movement for the flash-in-the-pan that I suspected it was: www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/08/democratic-socialism-sanders-ocasio-cortez-2018-primary-results-219161I think the sentiments behind some of hers and Sanders' ideas are good and could hopefully shift some of the conversation that the more establishment left has when figuring out the issues they should push for. But, the entire package, as is, is way too "out there" to be taken seriously. Having said that, there are some sensible steps that could be taken to at least move more in the direction of some of the less crazy ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 4:40:45 GMT -5
I'm not pretending anything. But honestly, I wouldn't pick on her if Dems didn't keep calling her the future of their party. And we might not pick on Trump if he weren't president of the freaking United States with an 80% approval rating among Republicans (though a perfectly dreadful one from everyone else), and some Republicans weren't gushing that he was the godliest, smartest president ever and voting for other candidates like him and deriding the NeverTrump faction of their party as traitors. Pretty clearly Republicans are regarding Trumpiness as the future of their party, no? Ms. O-C is getting lots of gushy press because she's very young and cute and some progressives are really enthusiastic about her. A lot of us Democrats, though, are shaking our heads, as evidenced in this thread, where every Democrat here has said she's not what they want in a candidate and do not regard her as the future of our party. She won in an extremely liberal, very atypical district. Other districts, far from regarding her and her like as the future of the party, are voting in Conor Lambs and Amy McGraths -- who are also getting a lot of gushing from Democrats as the future of the party, Amy in particular. See e.g.g, ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/fighter-pilot-amy-mcgrath-wins-kentucky-primary. www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/politics/amy-mcgrath-kentucky.html. And then there are people like Beto O'Rourke, Doug Jones, and Richard Painter. Though, yeah, I know, they don't fit the Duh Dems Are Too Stupid And Radical to Govern narrative as nicely. The odd outlier aside--and that's what Ms. O-C is-- it looks to me like there's far more of a centrist vibe going on among Democrats than among Republicans at the moment. If I were to post with little roll-y laughing guys every single time Trump comes out with nonsensical word salad or preposterous statements, I'd have time for nothing else. While the degree of gushing about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was not deserved (everyone in the thread agrees with that, and agrees that she's not a good candidate), it's also IMO the case that the degree of mocking, hand-wringing, and Oh-Doz-Stupid-Democrats-ing surrounding her is also way out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2018 18:23:34 GMT -5
Jesus, this is ridiculous yet impressive at the same time. Ocasio-Cortez finally jump the shark, and a bunch of progressives jumped with her, by likening Ben Shapiro's debate offer to "cat-calling" sexual harassment. Fucking hell, she is batshit insane. (also, you can tell the NYT's bias in the fact that they characterized her 4,000 vote win against an opponent who didn't actually campaign, in a primary that only drew less than 8% of registered Democratic voters as a "trouncing.") www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/nyregion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-debate-catcalling-ben-shapiro.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 21:46:28 GMT -5
Um. I don't agree that her comparison here is batshit insane, or anything like it.
Here's the exchange:
Ben Shapiro, who is a prime asshat IMO, is demanding she debate him. Please, he's not interested in a debate on issues. He's interested in trying to make a spectacle and get some attention. He's not her opponent and she's not only entitled to decline, she's wise to do so.
But just like a catcaller in the street who yells a "compliment" at a woman and then gets angry and begins berating the woman as a bitch when she doesn't smile and thank him for the uninvited compliment, Ben gets all pissy and makes a stink. Like the catcaller, he feels entitled to a positive response.
I think it's a decent comparison.
And she did rout her opponent among those who voted, which for these purposes is the group that counts, and it was quite unexpected by her opponent and all the talking heads, though not by me. Sure, a low percentage of the electorate turned out because that's what always inevitably happens in a non-presidential primary, especially in a district like that. "Rout" is perfectly fair.
The NY Times isn't the only one that may have a bias here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 21:56:59 GMT -5
I see all the right-leaning sites are screeching that Ocasio-Cortez "slandered" Shapiro by calling him a catcaller. Jesus Christ--talk about jumping the shark. She didn't call him a catcaller--she drew an analogy between the feelings of unjustified entitlement Shapiro has and those the catcaller has. She did imply that Shapiro's intentions in demanding a debate are not friendly ones, but yeah, they aren't.
I actually don't give a rat's ass about this woman, but at this point I find the pearl-clutching by those who dislike her more ridiculous than the gushing by those who do--and that's really saying something.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 10, 2018 22:22:12 GMT -5
My initial reaction was similar to Opty's - a challenge to a debate is not the same as catcalling. However, it's fair to ask how many other politicians Shapiro has issued this challenge to. It's suspicious that he only singled her out. That doesn't make this harassment, but her claim that it's offered in bad faith is accurate, I think. Live debating is a different skillset than actually being a subject matter expert. I have seen professional creationist debaters make evolutionary biologists stammer and look foolish in debates, because the creationist is very prepared, good at performing, has questions that sound reasonable and aren't easy to answer succinctly in a way that won't go over the heads of a non-scientific audience, and has practiced lines that he knows sound good and likewise, has ready, glib answers to what he knows an evolutionist's usual line of attack will be. That doesn't mean the creationist isn't an ignorant anti-scientific whack job, but he's a better debater. Ben Shapiro is a skilled debater, and Ocasio-Cortez... well, we've seen how well she handles herself when given tough questions. I mean, that in itself doesn't prove her positions are actually wrong (though I do think she is pretty "lightly informed" about most matters), but let's be honest, Shapiro would mop the floor with her in a debate regardless of what they were debating and which position each of them were taking. Shapiro knows this, and Ocasio-Cortez no doubt knows it too. So there's no upside to her accepting his challenge, and it really is a little like a boxer challenging a woman half his size to a bout and then crowing when she won't accept. Arguably, a politician should at least be competent at explaining and defending her positions. But Shapiro isn't an opposing candidate. She's reading this for what it is, Ben Shapiro playing to his audience and looking for an opportunity to embarrass her and generate some soundbites her actual opponent will be able to use against her. The comparison to catcalling is a little bit of a stretch, but as tweeted rejoinders go, it's not remotely as stupid as what Trump typically generates a dozen times before breakfast. Shapiro wanted a war of words so she took a shot at him. Maybe a weeeee bit of a cheap shot, but jeebus, grow a pair and quit whining 'cause the girl won't kiss you, Ben.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2018 22:28:37 GMT -5
Ben Shapiro, who is a prime asshat IMO, is demanding she debate him. "Demanding?" Please point out a timestamp in the vid below where he ever "demanded" that she debate him. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to conclude that you're repeating hyperbole. I disagree strongly with several of his views, but this was about as cordial an invitation to appear on his Sunday show (the suggestion that it be a debate was just that, a suggestion if she preferred that format) as I think he could've put forth (especially given how smug he usually is): I agree that's probably part of his motivation. He wants to bring views to his Sunday one-on-one show. Views = money, and the bigger "get" he can book on his show, the more views, and the more money for him. But, he's had liberals on there before, people who disagree with him strongly on big issues (Eric Weinstein, for example), so his request isn't exactly out of left field. Please, he didn't "make a stink" until after she'd already made a ridiculous comparison to cat-calling. He's not the one who was pestering her about it. It was people Twitter, both his fans (I'm sure) and hers. He only made the one original post and then didn't respond again until she'd make her batshit crazy comment. But, to be fair, in the few responses he's made about it, he's aptly pointed out her hypocrisy on what is or is not "cat-calling"/harassment when it comes to wanting to debate someone: We'll have to live with strongly disagreeing on that. She was only able to get less than 5% of the registered Democrats in the 14th district to get out to the polls to vote for her, and still only beat him by 4000 votes. Crowley didn't even really campaign and never really has had to in the primaries. He's run unopposed in that district for the better part of 20 straight years. Given his apparent lack of effort, she's arguably the one who ran unopposed. He couldn't even deign to debate her (which he should've, because that would've been the perfect time to expose how unqualified she is). She didn't win the primary as much as Crowley lost it. Had he bothered to put forth even the slightest of effort, I doubt she would've won. His career-ending mistake was not taking her seriously. He's still on the ballot (last I read, but that might've changed), so it'll be interesting to see if people loyal to him still vote for him in November. Back at ya. <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 277px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7672285" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 502px; top: 277px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_74781843" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 432px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_93568101" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 502px; top: 432px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_97990343" scrolling="no"></iframe>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2018 8:40:26 GMT -5
He devoted quite a bit of time to taking her down in this speech. She's a primary winner in a wee little district-- as you and Ben are so eager to point out-- and she hasn't won the actual election yet nor spent a day in office. Yet it's all "debate me!" and "let me spend 17 minutes of a speech taking her down." Seems, I dunno, disproportionate to me.
This DEBATE ME! tactic is the latest thing on the far right. E.G., the loathsome Dinesh D'Souza demanded that an historian, Kevin Kruse, debate him. Poor Dinesh is all in a dither because Kruse did some devastating take-downs of the historical bullshit Dinesh spews. Kruse declined. In a converstation with some other noted historians on Twitter, they discussed the point Amadan alluded to-- such "debates" tend to favor the slick bad faith-participater. Kruse can dance rings around D'Souza, can support everything he says, has a depth of knowledge and perspective D'Souza can't touch-- but D'Sousa would do exactly what Amadan describes happening when evolutionary biologists "debate" creationists.
Now, Ocasio-Cortez obviously has no such depth of knowledge. She's a newbie ignoramus. But she doesn't owe it to Ben to debate him. He's not her opponent or someone in her district or anyone to whom she owes squat. And frankly, he's an asshole. I wouldn't debate him either, and it's not because I'm afraid of him. It's for the same reason I wouldn't debate Tucker Carlson or Dinesh D'Souza--they aren't acually interested in a good-faith debate.
Anyway, I've been seeing the "debate me!" thing a lot in the Twittersphere, so to the extent I have a bias here, it's not pro-Ocasio-Cortez -- it's anti-disingenuous right-wing jackoffs demanding people debate them.
As to the catcalling analogy -- she could have made the same point by comparing Ben to those people on the sidewalk (in NYC, anyway) who accost you on the sidewalk trying to get you to sign things, buy things, or donate money. You don't have any obligation to give them money nor to acknowledge them in any way. Indeed, I never do (I don't donate money on the street). Every once in a while, one of them gets self-righteous and huffy about it. They feel entitled to my stopping because of their oh-so-wonderful cause. Fuck you, no, you're not entitled.
Or perhaps she could have compared him to the telemarketers who call during dinner, whom we have no obligation to talk to.
I don't have a problem with her using the catcaller instead because I think Ben's motivation is ill-intentioned and he's not looking for an actual debate on socialism. If he were, he'd challenge some eminent expert on socialism, not some little primary winner in a wee district. what he wants is to make her look as bad as possible.
Your mileage may differ. But my, this is a lot of energy being expended on a one-off primary winner in one small district.
ETA:
Indeed, I'll go further -- I think Ben anticipated that she'd refuse (as I believe Dinesh anticipated Kruse would refuse) the DEBATE ME! challenge. That's a win for them, maybe more so than winning an actual debate -- they get to sneer and their followers get to sneer "oh, see, she's AFRAID to debate me!" When in fact there are excellent reasons not to participate in this stunt. (Indeed, what would Ocasio-Cortez gain by it? She doesn't need the campaign contribution. It won't sway a vote here in NYC. So why on earth would she do it?)
No, this is pure ill-intentioned bullshit on Ben's part. If I were Ocasio-Cortez, I would have blown it off entirely, just as I do the catcallers and the people pitching their schpiels on the street.
|
|