All Things "AOC" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the Squad.

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Like it or not, AOC's style of addressing the GOP energizes a segment of the Democratic base who wants to see their leaders fight back...and if Democrats want to hold power, that base needs to be fired up about what their leaders are doing instead of just ****ing about what Republicans are doing.

 

 

This isnt energizing anybody but folks that take fox news intravenously or live on Twitter.

 

The dem base as a whole will be motivated by seeing bills passed, actually getting what they voted for or promised. Where is the voting reforms? Police reforms? Public Option?

 

These bases are different, the GOP can have no presidential platform or midterm agenda like they did in 2020 and will in 2022 and still win elections because of their rhetoric.  Dems can't do that, they actually have to have plans and show results, and then still might lose.

 

We already went through this in Virginia, I was in denial the impact of not getting major legislation done in congress had on our governor election.  I've accepted that now, and its a death wish to get nothing else passed, like build back better, between here and November. 

 

I'm really not in the mood for any Democrats saying a word right now, STFU and pass some bills.  You'll get more done with some GOPers, but dammit if you can't,  please PLEASE get something done without them. 

 

AOC voted against the infrastructure bill, so as much as I like her, she is frustrating as hell at the same time.  And playing the GOP rhetoric game isn't going to help bring anybody from that side with her in the House or the Senate.

 

We live in an era of hyper-partisainship and dysfunctional government, FFS dont add to that, dont feed the monster because others do like its just "a sign of the times". This isnt reality tv, this is reality, and the world is watching. 

[LadySkinsFan]

And why did AOC vote against the infrastructure bill? The answer is because the two bills were supposed to happen together for a cohesive whole reform effort. Now we see Manchin whittling down the companion bill to again assist the rich and corporations while We the People get shunted aside once again, like the progressives knew would happen. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

And why did AOC vote against the infrastructure bill? The answer is because the two bills were supposed to happen together for a cohesive whole reform effort. Now we see Manchin whittling down the companion bill to again assist the rich and corporations while We the People get shunted aside once again, like the progressives knew would happen. 

 

They weren't going to pass together and dems lost elections taking too long to try. 

 

That was a protest vote by AOC, it helped nothing, she doesn't deserve credit for that. Dems can't pass anything because they aren't united, how does voting against a major piece of legislation like that help at all?

 

At some point you have to take what you can get, not take your ball and go home with a protest vote, GD if they bill failed to pass the house over enough dems doing that, then what?

Edited January 2, 2022 by Renegade7

[bearrock]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

They weren't going to pass together and dems lost elections taking too long to try. 

 

That was a protest vote by AOC, it helped nothing, she doesn't deserve credit for that. Dems can't pass anything because they aren't united, how does voting against a major piece of legislation like that help at all?

 

At some point you have to take what you can get, not take your ball and go home with a protest vote, GD if they bill failed to pass the house over enough dems doing that, then what?

 

Dems can't pass BBB in its current state because they have no leverage over Manchin.  The progressive wing, along with an increasing share of the liberal base have had it with the incrementalist approach and would like to go big or go home, because they view the incremental band aid as being just as meaningless as not passing a sufficient solution (suppose science says we need to cut carbon gas by X% by Y year to stave off catastrophic climate change.  What difference does it make whether the legislation falls short by a lot or do nothing?  It's still inadequate to stave off the catastrophe).  Do I agree with their view?  At least not all the time.  Do I think reasonable people can differ in this approach?  I do.

 

If the infrastructure bill failed, then maybe that spurs leadership to say, ok progressives aren't going to be molified with vague meaningless promises.  We need to have a rock solid promise or package infrastructure with Senate passable BBB because what Manchin and Sinema are promising now isn't worth a bag of peanuts (shocking).

 

And VA didn't turn red because of BBB.  Enough parents said they are sick and tired of schools being shut down and they want to make sure they have an insane governor in place to make sure that can never happen again in the next few years (because apparently the dumbass legislation that sought to micromanage pandemic response by schools for the future regardless of how the situation may change wasn't stupid enough).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Dems can't pass BBB in its current state because they have no leverage over Manchin.  The progressive wing, along with an increasing share of the liberal base have had it with the incrementalist approach and would like to go big or go home, because they view the incremental band aid as being just as meaningless as not passing a sufficient solution (suppose science says we need to cut carbon gas by X% by Y year to stave off catastrophic climate change.  What difference does it make whether the legislation falls short by a lot or do nothing?  It's still inadequate to stave off the catastrophe).  Do I agree with their view?  At least not all the time.  Do I think reasonable people can differ in this approach?  I do.

 

If progressives want to big bang approach to these issues, they need to get off Twitter and vote more of themselves into office.  I do not agree with "fix everything or fix nothing", especially in this political climate because the huge risk of getting nothing.  That's not how you negotiate, thats the GOP playbook for taking back power by saying nothing is getting done, it doesn't work for Dems.

 

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If the infrastructure bill failed, then maybe that spurs leadership to say, ok progressives aren't going to be molified with vague meaningless promises.  We need to have a rock solid promise or package infrastructure with Senate passable BBB because what Manchin and Sinema are promising now isn't worth a bag of peanuts (shocking).

 

No, what it does is it pushes the infrastructure bill into 2022 and risks it not passing at all.  It also would give Biden less time to get BBB or anything else passed before the midterms.  What Sinema and Manchin are doing in the senate is a different issue then AOC not voting for infrastructure bill in the house, they both voted yes on infrastructure bill in the senate, even Sanders and McConnell voted yes:

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00314.htm

 

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

And VA didn't turn red because of BBB.  Enough parents said they are sick and tired of schools being shut down and they want to make sure they have an insane governor in place to make sure that can never happen again in the next few years (because apparently the dumbass legislation that sought to micromanage pandemic response by schools for the future regardless of how the situation may change wasn't stupid enough).

 

To be clear, I never said Infrastructure bill not passing in time was the reason Dems lost Virginia, im saying I underrated the impact, the same way you are now.  We are going to get off track here, but Dems lost mostly because McAuliffe was a terrible candidate. 

 

He moved the education debate into the forefront in Virginia with his short-sighted comments during one of the debates and had no response for his republican opponent saying he wanted to increase school spending instead of cutting it like the GOP usually does, that was new and he didn't adjust to it at all.

 

I promise you passing BBB and getting universal pre-k done before that election would've helped the dems in the education debate in our state. 

 

We are talking about multiple different things now, and none of them exist in a vacuum.  We should not act like the Dems inability to get major legislation done while in control of congress and the white house won't have an impact on elections, it will, it does, it did.

 

Back to AOC, I wish someone asked her if she still would've voted no on the infrastructure bill if she knew the dems didn't have enough votes to afford any defections in the house.  

 

And I see no one is touching the question on if they said the same thing about their coworkers regarding not being able to date them and sexual frustrations on twitter for everyone to see.  It seems to be most of yall feel because the Republicans talk like that its okay for Democrats to talk like that.

 

No, neither of them should be talking like that, its fn embarrassing and thats not the only way she could've defended herself (whether not it was even neccesary in context of everything thrown at her on twitter on a regular basis is a whole nother debate).

[bearrock]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If progressives want to big bang approach to these issues, they need to get off Twitter and vote more of themselves into office.  I do not agree with "fix everything or fix nothing", especially in this political climate because the huge risk of getting nothing.  That's not how you negotiate, thats the GOP playbook for taking back power by saying nothing is getting done, it doesn't work for Dems.

 

Progressives are saying moderates can get everything they want when they can get majority in both houses and the white house without the progressive wing's help.  

 

Progressives are also pointing out the danger of putting down five dollars for a hundred dollar problem.  People fool themselves into thinking somehow that otc painkiller made their cancer go away.  How far has walking lockstep with the moderates have gotten progressives in American politics?

 

Quote

No, what it does is it pushes the infrastructure bill into 2022 and risks it not passing at all.  It also would give Biden less time to get BBB or anything else passed before the midterms.  What Sinema and Manchin are doing in the senate is a different issue then AOC not voting for infrastructure bill in the house, they both voted yes on infrastructure bill in the senate, even Sanders and McConnell voted yes:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00314.htm

 

You really think any plugged in member on this forum doesn't know the history of the infrastructure bill and BBB?  Progressives saw three choices on the table: 1) allow moderates to pass only so much of the president's agenda that are so moderate that even Republicans would agree with them; 2) insist that moderates include enough of the progressives' key agenda and pass them together to prevent Manchin and Sinema from doing exactly what they are doing now; 3) or do nothing and hope to argue to the Dem primary voters that Dem moderates are only willing to go as far as the GOP will let them.  You really question why they would seriously ponder options 2 and 3 as better than option 1?

 

Quote

To be clear, I never said Infrastructure bill not passing in time was the reason Dems lost Virginia, im saying I underrated the impact, the same way you are now.  We are going to get off track here, but Dems lost mostly because McAuliffe was a terrible candidate. 

He moved the education debate into the forefront in Virginia with his short-sighted comments during one of the debates and had no response for his republican opponent saying he wanted to increase school spending instead of cutting it like the GOP usually does, that was new and he didn't adjust to it at all.

I promise you passing BBB and getting universal pre-k done before that election would've helped the dems in the education debate in our state. 

We are talking about multiple different things now, and none of them exist in a vacuum.  We should not act like the Dems inability to get major legislation done while in control of congress and the white house won't have an impact on elections, it will, it does, it did.

 

I take a very dim view of the hypothesis that those who voted at all cost to keep schools open or those that couldn't be bothered enough to show up and vote would somehow have been swayed by a bill that would take a long time to have meaningful impact on people's lives.  If people were that tuned into legislative affairs in DC, they would understand that Dems don't actually control the senate because it's  48 dems and 2 moderate to conservative independents (or 3 with King).  But yes, McAuliffe is a moron.  And if they really understood it and support the BBB (which would be the only class of people disturbed by its non-passage), they would work doubly hard during midterm to ensure an actual dem majority, but I won't hold my breath.

 

Quote

Back to AOC, I wish someone asked her if she still would've voted no on the infrastructure bill if she knew the dems didn't have enough votes to afford any defections in the house.  

And I see no one is touching the question on if they said the same thing about their coworkers regarding not being able to date them and sexual frustrations on twitter for everyone to see.  It seems to be most of yall feel because the Republicans talk like that its okay for Democrats to talk like that.

No, neither of them should be talking like that, its fn embarrassing and thats not the only way she could've defended herself (whether not it was even neccesary in context of everything thrown at her on twitter on a regular basis is a whole nother debate).

 

If I saw an employee post stuff on twitter about a co-worker like GOP congress members did for AOC and I saw the co-worker respond like AOC, I would fire the employee, apologize to the targeted co-worker, and be on the phone with HR to make sure our insurance policy was in good order.  

[Renegade7]

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Progressives are saying moderates can get everything they want when they can get majority in both houses and the white house without the progressive wing's help.  

 

Progressives are also pointing out the danger of putting down five dollars for a hundred dollar problem.  People fool themselves into thinking somehow that otc painkiller made their cancer go away.  How far has walking lockstep with the moderates have gotten progressives in American politics?

 

Here's the problem: that all makes sense, but progressives are in the clear minority in regards to elected officials in their own party. Especially in congress.

 

I voted for Sanders in the primary because of exactly what you are talking about, folks aiming too low for too high a problem.  But not enough people voted with me to get him in, so here we are, trying to push moderates without risking getting nothing.

 

We can't force moderates to act like progressives, so their needs to be compromises that move the ball forward.  Theres $555 billion specific to climate change and green energy in build back better, its not enough, but thats not nothing.

 

I, too, felt ACA didn't go far enough, and want universal health care, but we lost that debate, so progressives need to help make sure moderates make good on their promise of a public option as part of agreeing to rally around Biden to put him in office.  Digging in heels for MFA won't work, their aren't enough progressives in office to get it done.

 

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

You really think any plugged in member on this forum doesn't know the history of the infrastructure bill and BBB?  Progressives saw three choices on the table: 1) allow moderates to pass only so much of the president's agenda that are so moderate that even Republicans would agree with them; 2) insist that moderates include enough of the progressives' key agenda and pass them together to prevent Manchin and Sinema from doing exactly what they are doing now; 3) or do nothing and hope to argue to the Dem primary voters that Dem moderates are only willing to go as far as the GOP will let them.  You really question why they would seriously ponder options 2 and 3 as better than option 1?

 

Again, im not trying to give a history lesson, im restating reality.  The dems do not have the votes to give progressives what they want, there is no forcing moderates to do it anyway. 

 

Machin has been moving the goal post from the start, why would progressives think he wouldn't do otherwise if this bleed into 2022? 

 

Its damn good they got one passed before he changes his mind on both and we all ended up with even less.  2 and 3 are calculations that couldve seriously backfired, they need to pass bills even if they aren't great bills.  ACA was always meant to be something to build on, for example, not fix everything day one.

 

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I take a very dim view of the hypothesis that those who voted at all cost to keep schools open or those that couldn't be bothered enough to show up and vote would somehow have been swayed by a bill that would take a long time to have meaningful impact on people's lives.  If people were that tuned into legislative affairs in DC, they would understand that Dems don't actually control the senate because it's  48 dems and 2 moderate to conservative independents (or 3 with King).  But yes, McAuliffe is a moron.  And if they really understood it and support the BBB (which would be the only class of people disturbed by its non-passage), they would work doubly hard during midterm to ensure an actual dem majority, but I won't hold my breath.

 

 

It isn't about understanding DC politics, its about dinner table conversations and future planning.  Much of the childcare and universal pre-k provisions would've started immediately as part of a 3-5 year phased in approach (depending in program):

 

https://www.ffyf.org/faq-on-the-child-care-and-preschool-provisions-in-the-build-back-better-act/

 

There's nothing to plan for or rally around if nothing is passed.  This was also the highest Virginia governor election turnout since 1997, so I dont get your comment about folks that didn't bother to show up and vote.

 

Whatever moderate Republicans we gained under Trump we lost to Youngkin, and education played a huge role in that.  Universal pre-k absolutely would've mattered in that discussion.

 

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If I saw an employee post stuff on twitter about a co-worker like GOP congress members did for AOC and I saw the co-worker respond like AOC, I would fire the employee, apologize to the targeted co-worker, and be on the phone with HR to make sure our insurance policy was in good order.  

 

I see, so the HR policy doesn't apply to both equally, jus the ones who started it?

[bearrock]

43 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I see, so the HR policy doesn't apply to both equally, jus the ones who started it?

 

In an effort to stay on topic, I'll only respond to this portion of your post (I think we've already highlighted where you and diverge on opinion with respect to other issues).

 

In the context of everything the GOP cretins level at AOC, including the ridiculous potshot at her boyfriend, I don't think her response was out of line (which didn't even rise to the level of what you paraphrased it as).  I'll consider it proportionate response. 

 

And yes, the context of how the conflict got there matters.  "I don't care who started it" is a lazy shorthand for "that was an overreaction and uncalled for".  I don't always view eye to eye with AOC, but her response was neither an overreaction nor uncalled for imo.  

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

In an effort to stay on topic, I'll only respond to this portion of your post (I think we've already highlighted where you and diverge on opinion with respect to other issues).

 

Fair enough.

 

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

In the context of everything the GOP cretins level at AOC, including the ridiculous potshot at her boyfriend, I don't think her response was out of line (which didn't even rise to the level of what you paraphrased it as).  I'll consider it proportionate response. 

 

I'm going to repost it then:

 

 

Talking about her coworkers not being able to date her and their sexual frustrations over posting about her boyfriend's feet sounds like frustration from previous posts about her.  This shouldve been an easy one to ignore, people post stuff about him and her all the time, this wasn't someone depicting killing her or anything like that.

 

No, this would be an HR disaster if any of us did that.  Then doubling down in a second response that some of them need to get therapy for everybody to see?  The analogy you are proposing is a toxic work environment that has been allowed to boil over, no way on earth is that the professional thing to say or high ground, which is what we should be demanding from all our elected officials.

 

Just because it sounds cool or justified doesn't make it right.

 

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

And yes, the context of how the conflict got there matters.  "I don't care who started it" is a lazy shorthand for "that was an overreaction and uncalled for".  I don't always view eye to eye with AOC, but her response was neither an overreaction nor uncalled for imo.  

 

Literally no one has said nothing prior to this matters.  I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with a response, but not that one.  Our standard for our politicians has gone in toilet since Trump, its no wonder politicians  rhetoric has gotten worse instead of better, now folks on both sides like it then wonder why they can't work together on anything. 

 

This is not looked at in a vacuum at all, this is part of a bigger picture that many it seems have given up hope on and accepted this is jus what congress is now.  I haven't because I know its unsustainable and will only get worse if we continue to condone it or worse root it on.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fair enough.

 

 

I'm going to repost it then:

 

 

Talking about her coworkers not being able to date her and their sexual frustrations over posting about her boyfriend's feet sounds like frustration from previous posts about her.  This shouldve been an easy one to ignore, people post stuff about him and her all the time, this wasn't someone depicting killing her or anything like that.

 

No, this would be an HR disaster if any of us did that.  Then doubling down in a second response that some of them need to get therapy for everybody to see?  The analogy you are proposing is a toxic work environment that has been allowed to boil over, no way on earth is that the professional thing to say or high ground, which is what we should be demanding from all our elected officials.

 

Just because it sounds cool or justified doesn't make it right.

 

 

Literally no one has said nothing prior to this matters.  I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with a response, but not that one.  Our standard for our politicians has gone in toilet since Trump, its no wonder politicians  rhetoric has gotten worse instead of better, now folks on both sides like it then wonder why they can't work together on anything. 

 

This is not looked at in a vacuum at all, this is part of a bigger picture that many it seems have given up hope on and accepted this is jus what congress is now.  I haven't because I know its unsustainable and will only get worse if we continue to condone it or worse root it on.

 

I don’t really have anything to add at the moment but just want to let you know I agree with every point you are making.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fair enough.

 

 

I'm going to repost it then:

 

 

Talking about her coworkers not being able to date her and their sexual frustrations over posting about her boyfriend's feet sounds like frustration from previous posts about her.  This shouldve been an easy one to ignore, people post stuff about him and her all the time, this wasn't someone depicting killing her or anything like that.

 

No, this would be an HR disaster if any of us did that.  Then doubling down in a second response that some of them need to get therapy for everybody to see?  The analogy you are proposing is a toxic work environment that has been allowed to boil over, no way on earth is that the professional thing to say or high ground, which is what we should be demanding from all our elected officials.

 

Just because it sounds cool or justified doesn't make it right.

 

 

Literally no one has said nothing prior to this matters.  I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with a response, but not that one.  Our standard for our politicians has gone in toilet since Trump, its no wonder politicians  rhetoric has gotten worse instead of better, now folks on both sides like it then wonder why they can't work together on anything. 

 

This is not looked at in a vacuum at all, this is part of a bigger picture that many it seems have given up hope on and accepted this is jus what congress is now.  I haven't because I know its unsustainable and will only get worse if we continue to condone it or worse root it on.

 

We've had a sitting member of Congress post on twitter an animated video about him killing her.  And not a single member of his own party called him a piece of trash to my knowledge.  She posted her opinion on the source of this weirdass vulgar harassment (to put it mildly) of her from the GOP (all without using the word **** like you did in your paraphrase, though my reaction would've been who cares). 

 

What response would've past muster with you in her shoes?  I think you all have some repressed sexual issues, why don't you go see a therapist?  Are they not creepy weirdos?  Are you seeing GOP do this to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren?  If they are not creepy weirdos, how else do we explain this behavior?  You think her post is some internet shtick.  I think her post is a genuine reaction after being creeped out by these scumbags for years on end.

Edited January 3, 2022 by bearrock

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

We've had a sitting member of Congress post on twitter an animated video about him killing her.  And not a single member of his own party called him a piece of trash to my knowledge.  She posted her opinion on the source of this weirdass vulgar harassment (to put it mildly) of her from the GOP (all without using the word **** like you did in your paraphrase, though my reaction would've been who cares). 

 

What response would've past muster with you in her shoes?  I think you all have some repressed sexual issues, why don't you go see a therapist?  Are they not creepy weirdos?  Are you seeing GOP do this to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren?  If they are not creepy weirdos, how else do we explain this behavior?  You think her post is some internet shtick.  I think her post is a genuine reaction after being creeped out by these scumbags for years on end.

 

Why are you mixing the death depiction video with responding to Republicans talking about her boyfriend's feet? Those aren't evenly remotely the same universe in regards to registered outrage.

 

They censured the congressmember who posted that video and stripped him of his committiees if I remember correctly, it's not like he got away scott-free. Talking about her boyfriend's feet doesn't need any response, let alone an equal one to the one concerning depicting her being killed.

 

I've already given her credit for how she handled that and called her out for how she handled this.  I've also said it was fine to respond, but not like that.  Stop insisting that boiling over is fine and giving her a pass to talk about every negative comment towards her on twitter because a video was posted by a coworker depicting her death.

 

She should not get a free pass to say whatever she wants just because the GOP won't call out their own the way they are going after her.  We still need to have lines and lead by example in our long hard road to turn down the temperature in our politics.

 

I love the way Mayor Pete handled them coming after his taking paternity leave, even challenging his masculinity. Obama got it worse then AOC did so far, even got a bomb sent to his house, and still didn't feed the beast every chance he could because he was tired of the GOP's crap.  

 

I dont believe AOC's response was an internet shtick, I believe its not how I want members of congress to talk to or about each other.  

Edited January 3, 2022 by Renegade7

[Spaceman Spiff]

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why are you mixing the death depiction video with responding to Republicans talking about her boyfriend's feet? Those aren't evenly remotely the same universe in regards to registered outrage.

 

They censured the congressmember who posted that video and stripped him of his committiees if I remember correctly, it's not like he got away scott-free. Talking about her boyfriend's feet doesn't need any response, let alone an equal one to the one concerning depicting her being killed.

 

I've already given her credit for how she handled that and called her out for how she handled this.  I've also said it was fine to respond, but not like that.  Stop insisting that boiling over is fine and giving her a pass to talk about every negative comment towards her on twitter because a video was posted by a coworker depicting her death.

 

She should not get a free pass to say whatever she wants just because the GOP won't call out their own the way they are going after her.  We still need to have lines and lead by example in our long hard road to turn down the temperature in our politics.

 

I love the way Mayor Pete handled them coming after his taking paternity leave, even challenging his masculinity. Obama got it worse then AOC did so far, even got a bomb sent to his house, and still didn't feed the beast every chance he could because he was tired of the GOP's crap.  

 

I dont believe AOC's response was an internet shtick, I believe its not how I want members of congress to talk to or about each other.  

 

I agree with everything you've said so far.

 

I'll also take it one step further.  I believe she's a textbook narcissist.  And before anyone jumps on me for picking on her, I believe there are plenty of other politicians out there today who are textbook narcissists too, but this is the AOC thread.  Saying she's a narcissist isn't automatically absolving others of the same judgement.

 

You're right, it's find to respond but she does it in a "look at me, look at me" way that's insufferable.  And look, I get it, a lot about politics today is about being the loudest and biggest personality, which is why she succeeds.  It's why Trump was able to become president, which is what you touched on earlier, I believe.  AOC is popular because of her personality, not because she's some amazing policy wonk with fresh ideas.  

 

I'm not even mad at it, it is what it is.  It's a profession that inherently allows narcissists to excel, which is why she's good at what she does.  

[tshile]

All I’ll say:

- AOC has a reason to be on edge, she’s the new target of the gop the same was pelosi has been

 

- they involved her boyfriend. Over feet/sandals. That’s off limits. And everyone knows that. 
 

i give her a complete pass. I like her even though I don’t agree with her on much. 

[bearrock]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why are you mixing the death depiction video with responding to Republicans talking about her boyfriend's feet? Those aren't evenly remotely the same universe in regards to registered outrage.

 

They censured the congressmember who posted that video and stripped him of his committiees if I remember correctly, it's not like he got away scott-free. Talking about her boyfriend's feet doesn't need any response, let alone an equal one to the one concerning depicting her being killed.

 

I've already given her credit for how she handled that and called her out for how she handled this.  I've also said it was fine to respond, but not like that.  Stop insisting that boiling over is fine and giving her a pass to talk about every negative comment towards her on twitter because a video was posted by a coworker depicting her death.

 

She should not get a free pass to say whatever she wants just because the GOP won't call out their own the way they are going after her.  We still need to have lines and lead by example in our long hard road to turn down the temperature in our politics.

 

I love the way Mayor Pete handled them coming after his taking paternity leave, even challenging his masculinity. Obama got it worse then AOC did so far, even got a bomb sent to his house, and still didn't feed the beast every chance he could because he was tired of the GOP's crap.  

 

I dont believe AOC's response was an internet shtick, I believe its not how I want members of congress to talk to or about each other.  

 

You can't view her response out of context with what she has had to deal with in the past (BTW, a grand total of two GOP members voted for the censure.  And I'm not sure GOP even considers Cheney and Kinzinger to be a GOP anymore).  If you have an employee who flips the bird and swears at another employee after a long pattern of harassment and vicious behavior, you have to take into consideration the chain of events that led to the breaking point.  Would it excuse every behavior under the sun?  Of course not.  But what she wrote in the context of all that happened?  Especially if she believes what she wrote to be actually true?  I'm not calling both into my office to say I don't care who started it.

 

It's extreme naiveté to believe somehow better enlightened behavior from the left will result in the fixing of political discourse.  You mentioned Obama staying above the fray and I agree he was a saint when it came to turning the other cheek with respect to the horror parade of idiocy on Fox and the right wing choir.  How did the political discourse improve after that?  Yeah, America elected that guy.  And it wasn't the polite measured discourse that got him thrown out of the WH either.  People called spade a spade and had no qualms about calling a sitting president of the United States a traitor and threat to freedom.  And I know plenty of people who despised Trump who wrung their hands and felt uneasy about speaking about the sitting president in such a way.  Well, you earn the way you're addressed and way people talk to you.  AOC called spade a spade.  Turning the other cheek and toning down the discourse is overrated when the people you're talking about are absolutely despicable and bat**** crazy.  (And again, what she wrote wasn't that big a deal to begin with.  I actually think some misguided sexual repression theory tends to be a more benign option among the possibilities).

 

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I agree with everything you've said so far.

 

I'll also take it one step further.  I believe she's a textbook narcissist.  And before anyone jumps on me for picking on her, I believe there are plenty of other politicians out there today who are textbook narcissists too, but this is the AOC thread.  Saying she's a narcissist isn't automatically absolving others of the same judgement.

 

You're right, it's find to respond but she does it in a "look at me, look at me" way that's insufferable.  And look, I get it, a lot about politics today is about being the loudest and biggest personality, which is why she succeeds.  It's why Trump was able to become president, which is what you touched on earlier, I believe.  AOC is popular because of her personality, not because she's some amazing policy wonk with fresh ideas.  

 

I'm not even mad at it, it is what it is.  It's a profession that inherently allows narcissists to excel, which is why she's good at what she does.  

 

What politician doesn't engage in "look at me"?  But narcissism is a pejorative for a good reason.  There's the inflated or grandiose sense of self importance.  But there's also the lack of empathy.  You can probably ascribe the first characteristic to many, if not almost all politicians to some degree.  Lack of empathy is not something I would ascribe to AOC (though whoever would do that, would then view her whole political career as an act, I'm sure).

 

I'm sure AOC is popular for different reasons to different people.  But one of the reason many support her is because when the moderates exasperate the progressives with "why they can't", she is among the group of progressives shouting back "why they must".  Her message was never about "I have all these great ideas that I came up with that will be great for the country" (that's Warren's domain).  She's the messenger that keeps on harping why there are all these obvious policy choices that are essential to be made (and while I frequently disagree, I recognize that she represents the views of not insignificant segment of the democratic party).  I'm sure there are no small number of people on both sides who would like to see her go away.  The problem is that the people she's giving voice to will still be there even if she's not.  Or even worse for the dems, they may decide to tune out with her.

[Barry.Randolphe]

There's an aspect you're all missing here - she's constantly met with 'DEBATE ME!!' tweets from these right wing nutjobs like Ben Shapiro that the running joke is that they all want to bang her and this is some pent up frustration on their part

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

You can't view her response out of context with what she has had to deal with in the past (BTW, a grand total of two GOP members voted for the censure.  And I'm not sure GOP even considers Cheney and Kinzinger to be a GOP anymore).  If you have an employee who flips the bird and swears at another employee after a long pattern of harassment and vicious behavior, you have to take into consideration the chain of events that led to the breaking point.  Would it excuse every behavior under the sun?  Of course not.  But what she wrote in the context of all that happened?  Especially if she believes what she wrote to be actually true?  I'm not calling both into my office to say I don't care who started it.

 

You keep saying this like no one cares how we got here, please stop, its disingenuous to the conversation we are having, and bad policy by any HR to reprimand one party and ignore the other. 

 

6 hours ago, bearrock said:

It's extreme naiveté to believe somehow better enlightened behavior from the left will result in the fixing of political discourse.  You mentioned Obama staying above the fray and I agree he was a saint when it came to turning the other cheek with respect to the horror parade of idiocy on Fox and the right wing choir.  How did the political discourse improve after that?  Yeah, America elected that guy.  And it wasn't the polite measured discourse that got him thrown out of the WH either.  People called spade a spade and had no qualms about calling a sitting president of the United States a traitor and threat to freedom.  And I know plenty of people who despised Trump who wrung their hands and felt uneasy about speaking about the sitting president in such a way.  Well, you earn the way you're addressed and way people talk to you.  AOC called spade a spade.  Turning the other cheek and toning down the discourse is overrated when the people you're talking about are absolutely despicable and bat**** crazy.  (And again, what she wrote wasn't that big a deal to begin with.  I actually think some misguided sexual repression theory tends to be a more benign option among the possibilities).

 

Let's be clear, the way Obama carried himself alone wasn't going to stop the right-wing propaganda machine, but it was the right thing to do concerning he is the representative of all of us here and abroad.

 

What he needed was backup regarding policy, which needs its own thread, because entities like Fox News get to hide behind the 1st Ammendment as a "News Organization".  A lot of people didn't take Facebook seriously as major player in this until the tail end of his administration, also a complex problem to address.

 

This type of hyper-partisainship is unsustainable for our democracy, we have to start somewhere with dialing it back, and how Obama responded was completely in his control, how AOC responds is completely in her control.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You keep saying this like no one cares how we got here, please stop, its disingenuous to the conversation we are having, and bad policy by any HR to reprimand one party and ignore the other. 

 

You are the one that keeps on talking only about the latest tweet.  You keep saying this particular one, she should've ignored.  I'm pointing out that this tweet comes after a long line of what happened before and it's out of context to say you should've ignored that particular one.  If you think she should ignore this one even in the context of near daily misogynistic harassment (sometimes worse), say so.  I'm certainly not going to agree with it in the name of "let's play nice and hope the deranged morons on ultra right calms down".

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

What he needed was backup regarding policy, which needs its own thread, because entities like Fox News get to hide behind the 1st Ammendment as a "News Organization".  A lot of people didn't take Facebook seriously as major player in this until the tail end of his administration, also a complex problem to address.

 

I would love to hear this one.  So in the context of AOC, what could she possibly do now to stop the right wing trolls from acting like subhuman beings?  Repeal the 1st?  Pressure organizations to self censor? (are you seeing the idiot rhetoric dialing down after Trump's social media ban? For every Trump you kick off, several more pops up in his place.  And amazingly so, these ones are even nuttier than him).  What back up plan did Obama need that AOC could utilize now to stop right the wing horror show? Because surely your proposal goes further than turn the other cheek and let's hope it gets better.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

This type of hyper-partisainship is unsustainable for our democracy, we have to start somewhere with dialing it back, and how Obama responded was completely in his control, how AOC responds is completely in her control.

 

I'm not going to put the burden of rescuing the discourse in American politics on AOC's shoulders.  She's been attacked ad nauseum, to me that entitles her to throw a brush back every now and then (if she calls for violence or riot at the capital,  I'll join you with the pitchforks).  Especially so considering that her acting all prim and proper isn't going to get much done to tone down the rhetoric (probably would elicit the opposite reaction from the trolls).  

 

The responsibility and the power of dialing down hyper-partisanship lies with the voters.  There will always be nutjobs selling a falsehood, vitriol, prejudice, and hatred.  The only way for us to be rid of them is for people to not vote them in and for political parties to kick them out at every opportunity.  And if half of America finds every which excuse to keep on voting in these nutjobs, there's no amount of proper behavior by the victims of these nutjobs that's going to dial down the conversation.  It's only hyper-partisanship because the other side is actually crazy or held hostage by the crazies (cue the tweets from sitting members of Congress saying why get the vaccine if they don't prevent infections a 100% of the time).  

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

You are the one that keeps on talking only about the latest tweet.  You keep saying this particular one, she should've ignored.  I'm pointing out that this tweet comes after a long line of what happened before and it's out of context to say you should've ignored that particular one.  If you think she should ignore this one even in the context of near daily misogynistic harassment (sometimes worse), say so.  I'm certainly not going to agree with it in the name of "let's play nice and hope the deranged morons on ultra right calms down".

 

If you keep insisting that its okay for her to respond like that because everything prior to it, we are going to need to agree to disagree, we are going in circles about it.

 

But stop misrepresenting my case as simply she should ignore everything they are saying and hope it goes away, I never said that. 

 

Yes, I wish she had ignored this one, it was a weak and petty attempt to get her attention, but fine with her responding if she responded differently.  They are now actively trying to get her to respond to everything they say about her on the internet and its working, she's giving them exactly what they want.  

 

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

I would love to hear this one.  So in the context of AOC, what could she possibly do now to stop the right wing trolls from acting like subhuman beings?  Repeal the 1st?  Pressure organizations to self censor? (are you seeing the idiot rhetoric dialing down after Trump's social media ban? For every Trump you kick off, several more pops up in his place.  And amazingly so, these ones are even nuttier than him).  What back up plan did Obama need that AOC could utilize now to stop right the wing horror show? Because surely your proposal goes further than turn the other cheek and let's hope it gets better.

 

 

Ya know, its her job to try to figure this out from a policy standpoint, as was Obama's.  What UK does is they have impartiality rules that lead to UK coming after Fox News and Fox News eventually leaving the UK:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/06/fox-news-shows-broke-uk-tv-impartiality-rules-ofcom-finds

 

We desperately need something like that here, not just for Fox News, but for every US "news" organization.  Fox News needs to be challenged as a news organization and the press credentials called into question.

 

Freedom of Speech doesn't give anyone the right to say whatever you want, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, nor openly say you want to kill the president.  The right for news organizations to say whatever they want needs to be challenged, its gone too far.

 

Facebook is not a news organization but has completely lost control of their platform.  They are hiding behind needed guidance on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, so fine, give them what they want, and make it hurt.  This will apply to all social media platforms, not jus Facebook, Twitter is at least starting to ban politicians from its platform for continously violating its policies.

 

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

I'm not going to put the burden of rescuing the discourse in American politics on AOC's shoulders.  She's been attacked ad nauseum, to me that entitles her to throw a brush back every now and then (if she calls for violence or riot at the capital,  I'll join you with the pitchforks).  Especially so considering that her acting all prim and proper isn't going to get much done to tone down the rhetoric (probably would elicit the opposite reaction from the trolls).  

 

Again, she's an elected official in congress, it is her job to figure out how to resolve this.  Her job isn't to bring attention to issues, its to resolve them. 

 

Her entire party deserves to be taken to task for not coming up with a plan to address this, I jus laid out two of what should be many.

 

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

The responsibility and the power of dialing down hyper-partisanship lies with the voters.  There will always be nutjobs selling a falsehood, vitriol, prejudice, and hatred.  The only way for us to be rid of them is for people to not vote them in and for political parties to kick them out at every opportunity.  And if half of America finds every which excuse to keep on voting in these nutjobs, there's no amount of proper behavior by the victims of these nutjobs that's going to dial down the conversation.  It's only hyper-partisanship because the other side is actually crazy or held hostage by the crazies (cue the tweets from sitting members of Congress saying why get the vaccine if they don't prevent infections a 100% of the time).  

 

It can't jus be the voters when there are huge, powerful people and organizations pouring millions, if not billions, into manipulating them and the information they get about the world around them.

 

Waiting for folks to figure out they are being played isn't going to work here and doesn't work overseas either.  This didn't happen organicly, this was a targeted misinformation attack on our population over a span of decades from the inside and is also now coming from the outside as well (that needs to be addressed as well, dont jus say its happening and "be on the look out").

Edited January 3, 2022 by Renegade7

[Hersh]

What in the **** is this back and forth all about? One or two AOC tweets in which she was clearly wanting to take attention off her b/f since he's not a public figure?

[TradeTheBeal!]

AOC living the good life at Miami drag bars this weekend with Broadway stars and blowing kisses to her fans.

 

Hilarious.

[Llevron]

I do think it’s funny the tweet about people being sexually repressed has a bunch of dudes pissed off lol

[Renegade7]

53 minutes ago, Hersh said:

What in the **** is this back and forth all about? One or two AOC tweets in which she was clearly wanting to take attention off her b/f since he's not a public figure?

 

Oversimplification of a much larger issue.  I dont know if you've read the whole discussion, but a lot was touched on, not jus that.

[Destino]

I have no issue with her needling her critics in response to their weird attempts at harassment.  Congress is filled with outright traitors talking openly about “national divorce” in the wake of an insurrection.  There’s no use pretending that the rules of etiquette matter while a good percentage of the members are trying to set the building on fire.

 

i do agree that things should not be this way, but they are.  Anything short of outrageous statements go entirely ignored by the press and the country.