Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

oftenreading · May 2019

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?

Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.

She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.

Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.

oftenreading · May 2019

And keeping it classy as always, a Fox host said “beauty fades but stupid is forever”, in reference to AOC, while also calling her irrelevant, though if she was irrelevant they would not be talking about her so damn much.

https://apple.news/AYj-E6y9aTvqAhNkO5Ue4Ig

tempo_n_groove · May 2019

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?

Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.

She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.

Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.

She goes to events for the little things in her community so her name and face are around there. She will have accomplished zero when it comes to legislation or change in her district.

Where are you finding out info about her? The website she has listed gives zero information on things.

Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.

Poll numbers are bad.

I'd like for her to do good but not looking so hot.

dignin · May 2019

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

I still think she's great.

Happy to see a democrat with a spine.

there are plenty of democrats with a spine. she is just the Tasmanian devil, spinning around, grunting and screaming, with little to no effect so far. she's eager and full of energy and has a decent handle on the issues, but she's not going about it the right way.

I disagree.

And if you think the democrats have been going about it the "right way" you haven't been paying attention for the past 20 plus years.

she's idealistic, but also quite pompous. she's outraged over pretty much everything she comes across. people will become numb to it over time.

I have been paying attention, thank you.

Sounds like you are buying into the narrative by this comment. So I guess you are paying attention to something, but maybe the wrong something.

again with the "if you think differently than me you are being fooled" garbage.

Maybe you should preface your comments with "I think" then.

oh come on. it's pretty obvious it's an opinion. i have never once here proposed that I am 100% right in anything I'm saying. it's opinion. you must be thinking of another poster.

if your default of everyone's post is "this is a fact" then maybe you need to rethink how you interpret online forum engagement.

Then stop using the strawman defense "if you think differently than me you are being fooled" line.

Nobody says it but it's a nice deflection.

Regardless, it's no big deal. Time to move on, we differ on our assessment of AOC.

"sounds like you are buying into the narrative" = "if you think differently than me you are being fooled"

you have zero evidence that I have been buying into any narrative. stating such is nothing more than a dismissal of someone's opinion for no other reason than it differs from yours. that's not a strawman defense, BTW. a strawman defense is a deflection, as you stated, which is what you did, not me.

Haha, sure. Like I said, moving on.

PJ_Soul · May 2019

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not buying into any fucking narrative. I followed her on twitter for a while, but got tired of her. I read about her comments to the media, and she's snarky as fuck and I think it comes across as unprofessional. I don't give a shit if "that's how the other side does it". I don't agree with it when anyone does it, regardless of affiliation.

she reminds me of friends of mine when they first got into law school. all of a sudden they proclaimed themselves the knowers of all information and they were going to save the world and everyone else was a fucking idiot. eventually they came around and went back to being normal people, but fuck if they weren't pompous assholes for a while.

I don't think you're her target audience TBH. I think she is playing the long game, and is focused on people her age. Millennials and Gen Z and beyond. I don't think she expects to get most of her support from Gen X (although she has mine - I love her. I think government needs more young radicals now, hell at this point I'd even welcome anarchists, lol. I don't think we desperately need more "professionalism" in the context you're saying. But I would say I'm in a minority about this point within my own generation).

But also, I disagree that her attitude is pompous or arrogant. I think that is plain old genuine passion, excitement, drive, confidence, etc etc. It saddens me a little when people see that from a young woman and decide on negative labels like that. I think they are misinterpreting her.

tempo_n_groove · May 2019

oftenreading said:

And keeping it classy as always, a Fox host said “beauty fades but stupid is forever”, in reference to AOC, while also calling her irrelevant, though if she was irrelevant they would not be talking about her so damn much.

https://apple.news/AYj-E6y9aTvqAhNkO5Ue4Ig

We all know not to listen to FOX. They love that woman on there.

dignin · May 2019

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?

Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.

She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.

Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.

Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.

Poll numbers are bad.

Source?

jeffbr · May 2019

I was a fan at first. Young, brash, enthusiastic and idealistic. I even said as much earlier in the thread. Now I just think she's a progressive, female version of Trump. Says dumb things. No decorum. No respect for the institutions. No ability to build consensus. Only she can be right. Lack of experience. Lack of foresight. Generally obnoxious personality. Over-inflated opinion of herself and her abilities. She makes it difficult to support her. She's working in a way that is counter-productive to getting Trump out of office and a Dem elected president.

tempo_n_groove · May 2019

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?

Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.

She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.

Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.

Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.

Poll numbers are bad.

Source?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-polls-like-trump-poll-of-the-week/index.html

google search

tempo_n_groove · May 2019

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/majority-of-ocasio-cortez-constituents-view-her-favorably-but-lament-amazon%E2%80%99s-nyc-pullout-poll-finds/ar-BBVOtkg

Amazon findings

PJ_Soul · May 2019

I don't think she cares about polling either way. She specifically ran for office to make big waves. That is what she is doing. She has zero intention of curbing her radicalism in order to fit in. Her stated intention is to do the exact opposite of that. And that attitude will likely continue to serve her well in the long run. I will be surprised if we're not still hearing her name 20 and 30 years from now, whatever her future wins and losses may be.

jeffbr · May 2019

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think she cares about polling either way. She specifically ran for office to make big waves. That is what she is doing. She has zero intention of curbing her radicalism in order to fit in. Her stated intention is to do the exact opposite of that. And that attitude will likely continue to serve her well in the long run. I will be surprised if we're not still hearing her name 20 and 30 years from now, whatever her future wins and losses may be.

If she can't build any consensus, she can't get anything done. How does this serve her well? Washington D.C. is a place where consensus, compromise and coalition makes things happen.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2019

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not buying into any fucking narrative. I followed her on twitter for a while, but got tired of her. I read about her comments to the media, and she's snarky as fuck and I think it comes across as unprofessional. I don't give a shit if "that's how the other side does it". I don't agree with it when anyone does it, regardless of affiliation.

she reminds me of friends of mine when they first got into law school. all of a sudden they proclaimed themselves the knowers of all information and they were going to save the world and everyone else was a fucking idiot. eventually they came around and went back to being normal people, but fuck if they weren't pompous assholes for a while.

I don't think you're her target audience TBH. I think she is playing the long game, and is focused on people her age. Millennials and Gen Z and beyond. I don't think she expects to get most of her support from Gen X (although she has mine - I love her. I think government needs more young radicals now, hell at this point I'd even welcome anarchists, lol. I don't think we desperately need more "professionalism" in the context you're saying. But I would say I'm in a minority about this point within my own generation).
But also, I disagree that her attitude is pompous or arrogant. I think that is plain old genuine passion, excitement, drive, confidence, etc etc. It saddens me a little when people see that from a young woman and decide on negative labels like that. I think they are misinterpreting her.

passion and pompousness are not mutually exclusive. I totally agree she's passionate, as I said she seems to have ton of energy. I just think she comes off as arrogant.

and even if we disagreed on that, my take on her has zero to do with her being a "young woman". i'd say the same thing if it were beto or pete acting like that.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2019

jeffbr said:

I was a fan at first. Young, brash, enthusiastic and idealistic. I even said as much earlier in the thread. Now I just think she's a progressive, female version of Trump. Says dumb things. No decorum. No respect for the institutions. No ability to build consensus. Only she can be right. Lack of experience. Lack of foresight. Generally obnoxious personality. Over-inflated opinion of herself and her abilities. She makes it difficult to support her. She's working in a way that is counter-productive to getting Trump out of office and a Dem elected president.

agreed.

or maybe I'm just following the narrative. hard to tell when I have an opinion of my own or I just piggy back on others'.

PJ_Soul · May 2019

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not buying into any fucking narrative. I followed her on twitter for a while, but got tired of her. I read about her comments to the media, and she's snarky as fuck and I think it comes across as unprofessional. I don't give a shit if "that's how the other side does it". I don't agree with it when anyone does it, regardless of affiliation.

she reminds me of friends of mine when they first got into law school. all of a sudden they proclaimed themselves the knowers of all information and they were going to save the world and everyone else was a fucking idiot. eventually they came around and went back to being normal people, but fuck if they weren't pompous assholes for a while.

I don't think you're her target audience TBH. I think she is playing the long game, and is focused on people her age. Millennials and Gen Z and beyond. I don't think she expects to get most of her support from Gen X (although she has mine - I love her. I think government needs more young radicals now, hell at this point I'd even welcome anarchists, lol. I don't think we desperately need more "professionalism" in the context you're saying. But I would say I'm in a minority about this point within my own generation).
But also, I disagree that her attitude is pompous or arrogant. I think that is plain old genuine passion, excitement, drive, confidence, etc etc. It saddens me a little when people see that from a young woman and decide on negative labels like that. I think they are misinterpreting her.

passion and pompousness are not mutually exclusive. I totally agree she's passionate, as I said she seems to have ton of energy. I just think she comes off as arrogant.

and even if we disagreed on that, my take on her has zero to do with her being a "young woman". i'd say the same thing if it were beto or pete acting like that.

I know they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm saying that I don't think that she is pompous and arrogant, and that I think those who think she is are misreading her, mainly as a result of how her passion and excitement and intensity (and faith and hope) is expressed. It's sad to me.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2019

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

I still think she's great.

Happy to see a democrat with a spine.

there are plenty of democrats with a spine. she is just the Tasmanian devil, spinning around, grunting and screaming, with little to no effect so far. she's eager and full of energy and has a decent handle on the issues, but she's not going about it the right way.

I disagree.

And if you think the democrats have been going about it the "right way" you haven't been paying attention for the past 20 plus years.

she's idealistic, but also quite pompous. she's outraged over pretty much everything she comes across. people will become numb to it over time.

I have been paying attention, thank you.

Sounds like you are buying into the narrative by this comment. So I guess you are paying attention to something, but maybe the wrong something.

again with the "if you think differently than me you are being fooled" garbage.

Maybe you should preface your comments with "I think" then.

oh come on. it's pretty obvious it's an opinion. i have never once here proposed that I am 100% right in anything I'm saying. it's opinion. you must be thinking of another poster.

if your default of everyone's post is "this is a fact" then maybe you need to rethink how you interpret online forum engagement.

Then stop using the strawman defense "if you think differently than me you are being fooled" line.

Nobody says it but it's a nice deflection.

Regardless, it's no big deal. Time to move on, we differ on our assessment of AOC.

"sounds like you are buying into the narrative" = "if you think differently than me you are being fooled"

you have zero evidence that I have been buying into any narrative. stating such is nothing more than a dismissal of someone's opinion for no other reason than it differs from yours. that's not a strawman defense, BTW. a strawman defense is a deflection, as you stated, which is what you did, not me.

Haha, sure. Like I said, moving on.

haha, sure. just what I thought.

PJ_Soul · May 2019

I wonder if anyone in the history of the world who really was buying into a false narrative actually knew it at the time?? I doubt it. I'm not saying this about you specifically HFD. Just a general question.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2019

PJ_Soul said:

I wonder if anyone in the history of the world who really was buying into a false narrative actually knew it at the time?? I doubt it. I'm not saying this about you specifically HFD. Just a general question.

I can't see how they would know it at the time. if they did, then wouldn't they not follow it?.

I will admit to following the narrative post 9/11 when it came time to invade iraq (this is actually when I first started following US politics). I was all fucking for it, based on emotion alone. But then after having several conversations about it with others, I realized that I needed to remove myself emotionally from it and think about it more critically and do my own research. I learned from that in a big way. Which is why it pisses me off when someone basically tells me I'm an idiot without a thought of my own.

plus it's a lazy fucking argument to just dismiss someone like that. that whole drinking the kool aid shit. in my opinion, when someone accuses someone of that, it makes me think the accuser is actually the moron. or just plain lazy. it's pointless.

tempo_n_groove · May 2019

For the record FOX and the NY POST hate AOC. So if you do any research on her I'd skip those news sources.

PJ_Soul · May 2019

Okay... but I have to say it: What if someone truly thinks that someone they're talking with is buying into a false narrative? This obviously is going to be true at least some of the time. If you treat that idea as though it's dismissive or lazy or whatever, isn't that equally dismissive to that person, who just might be right? I realize that anyone, whether they are actually buying in or not, is going to be offended by the suggestion... But that doesn't mean it might not still be true, and it's kind of a point impossible not to make at times. Sometimes something is hugely explained by the fact that people are buying into a false narrative. It shouldn't be taboo to suggest it, whether they happen to be right or wrong. Anyone accused of it can obviously deny it (not that they'll know if it's true or not) and feel annoyed that they've been accused of it, but I don't think it's a crazy or lazy suggestion to be making even if it's not true.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

Comments

Categories