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

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Didn't Bernie do the same thing on several occasions? I suppose technically he is an (I) but still caucuses' with the Dems for the most part.  Also, the media usually doesn't cover any of the responses besides that of the opposition party anyway.

 

I did not know that nor have gone to verify if that's true because I still maintain that it's a horrible idea for a member of any political party to give a State of the Union rebuttal speech to a president of the same political party. It jus sounds incredibly counterproductive.

 

Any argument that Bernie is independent (not that you are specificly making one here) is moot because both times he ran for president in 2016 and 2020 he ran as a Democrat, not an independent.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Renegade7

[The Evil Genius]

Fwiw the article didn't make it sound like a rebuttal speech to the SOTU. It sounded like she would be calling out the GOP and some Dems (cough cough Manchin, Sinema) for not supporting the Build Back America act and other more progressive policies that the majority of people seem to want and back.

Edited February 24, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[ixcuincle]

 

[China]

 

[philibusters]

On 2/20/2022 at 2:33 PM, bearrock said:

AOC is guilty of using CRT imprecisely with respect to teacher training as well (which unfortunately is a fairly common phenomenon at this point).  Even people like Ben Shapiro do not disagree that the phenomenon of intersectionality is real.  Things taught to teachers such as institutional racial bias in curriculum, grading, and discipline are uncontroversial stuff.  There is a intersection between CRT and those issues, but like I said before, it's akin to basic algebraic concepts appearing in higher math.  Intersectionality and institutional racial bias are mundane stuff that most people will agree with.  And training those topics is really not CRT.  It would be as ridiculous as me saying that my kid's curriculum teaches discrete math because they covered 2+2. 

 

The following are my points and the ones you appear to disagree with to varying degrees.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

1) The term CRT as used in these discussions are not CRT.  They are short hand for any myriad of things to different people (a lot of the times, simply rudimentary instruction on racisim).  

2) No CRT is actually taught in schools.  Just as teaching 2+2 is not teaching discrete mathematics, teaching about intersectionality, history of racism, its role in American history, and institutional racial bias is not teaching CRT.  There wasn't some huge change to race education that prompted this backlash.  Adding interesting perspective raised in 1619 project is not remaking race education in America.

3) Teachers receive CRT training in school that is essentially training about racial sensitivity and bias.  

4) Progressives, especially progressive lawmakers, are not to blame for the "CRT" issue exploding.  It is simply the latest chapter in cultural war by the GOP.  

5) "Swing" voters who are so disingaged from reality and facts as to be legitimately swung by the CRT outrage (not, I really want to vote GOP because I'm sick and tired of the pandemic and want all restrictions off, but I need an excuse) would have been outraged by some other manufactured outrage as they always have been.

6) McAuliffe didn't lose because the progressives have poisoned the democratic party.  The pandemic fatigue, delta surge, BBB failure and aftermath of Biden's approval, and his own ridiculous stance on parent's role in school curriculum torpedoed his campaign (I would've disqualified his ass for doing an end run around VA term limits, but whatever)

7) And most important, central, and originally germane to this thread, AOC and co's messaging or policy positions are not what is sinking the democrats in the upcoming midterm.  Even the most model behavior by the Squad would not stop the pandemic fatigue and Biden's approval rating from nuking the Dem's chances. 

8. AOC and co are not manufacturing policy positions out of thin air.  There are very real segments of the democratic base who will not vote for democrats without people like AOC, Sanders, and Warren advocating for systemic changes.  To repudiate the AOC and the progressive wing is to repudiate those voters.  One cannot win without the other.  If the moderates think that those voters will turn out even if the party position no longer reflects progressive policies, they are dreaming. The democratic party has to find a way to be a big tent party (like passing a moderate/progressive compromise BBB would've shown).  

 

You mean the liberal agenda that moderates deem palatable.  Progressive lawmakers do not get to issue marching orders to people who are progressive.  BTW, if the opinion and actions of progressive Americans are hurting the moderates, then blame them, not progressive lawmakers.   

 

 

Here are some of my thoughts on your post:

1.  I do think there is more controversy around intersectionality and institutional racial bias that you are admitting.   In terms of intersectionality most people would agree that things like gender, race, ethnicity, language, religion, age are all identities that people understand themselves through and that other people make assumptions about the person on.  However over time, the social justice oriented left has developed specific beliefs about what those assumptions and I don't believe those beliefs reflect reality.  For example, their analysis in my opinion severely undervalues the role of class.   And its prone to simplistic beliefs, like being a woman disadvantages you to being a man.  And it a lot of situations that is true, men are going to get more positive assumptions than women.  But there are a lot of situations were its not true.  For example 95 of people killed by the police are male.  Kimberly Crenshaw compared to the plight of black women in the 1970's to the plight of black men and white women and showed that black women had disadvantages in the job market that neither other group had.   I think her research was accurate.  But the research used data from the 1970's when the U.S. had a more manufacturing economy.  50 years later our economy is much more service oriented and black women have better employment numbers than black men.  I think most left oriented intersectionalists have a view of gender that doesn't really reflect that change.   

 

In terms of institutional racial bias, I think the crux of the debate is what is causing the disparity of outcomes.   Pro-CRT people seem to think it is mainly current bias in our system causing these outcomes.   Others like myself, believe it mainly past discrimination that is causing these different outcomes.  Again, I think the social justice left really undervalues the role class plays in outcome.  If more black people are in the poorer classes that alone would create divergent racial results.  However, past racism can affect present results beyond simply class.  Certain cultural attitudes developed in black communities.  For example, when there was active discrimination in the school system and then when they tried to address that issue with school busing and black students had to go to schools with white teachers and students who were not welcoming--it can create a subconscious attitude that education is a white thing.  Past discrimination can affect the development over other attitudes that have last effects beyond class, though class is the biggest.  So in my opinion when CRT people are looking for active discrimination in bias in our system in creating divergent racial outcomes they are largely looking in the wrong spot.   That is not to say active bias doesn't exist, just that the bulk of racial disparity was likely caused by past discrimination and things like lifting the economic prospects of poor black people is likely going to be more effective at decreasing racial disparities that these super self reflective DEI exercises that seem to increase racial tensions by placing it in the forefront of everybody's mind.

 

2.  I actually do think what is being taught in school is CRT.     I know the liberal idea is that no CRT is being taught in school.  This is the analogy I would give:  Take a science lesson taught to 6th graders loosely based on physics.  The class may tough on subjects like gravity, Newton's law of motions, the orbit of the planets.  It only going to cover very basic ideas and not provide any detail.  In no way does the class touch on what actual physicists in academia do....but it is still physics.  To me, the heart of CRT is understanding why racial inequalities persist despite having racially neutral laws.  And the idea of institutional racism is the broad theory of CRT.  Same with intersectionality.  These really are the very basic ideas of CRT.   Now in academia, there are nuanced debates that examines lots of evidence and data.  None of that is reflected in what is being taught in schools.  However, these are the basic concepts are being taught in school and that does make it CRT.  People can distinguish between physics as it is in academia and how its taught to 6th graders, I don't understand why they cannot do that for CRT.

 

3.  I object to how the term progressive is used to describe both the social justice wing of the party  and the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.  There certainly is some overlap (say an AOC).  But there is a large part of each group that doesn't overlap.  A lot of social justice oriented people are not economic progressives.  They don't support the working class, in fact they are downright hostile to them. Take their objections to the truckers.   There was a lot of things you could object to about their protest, but if one was an economic progressive, one should have been sympathetic to at least part of their position.  Even the ideology of the social justice faction  is largely devoid of class analysis.   Likewise there is a large segment of economic progressives that don't like social justice theory.  They are largely traditionally liberal values on those issues.  I would place myself in that group.  The media tends to treat progressives as one group that is both social justice oriented and economically progressive, and while that is true in lots of individual cases like AOC, it simply isn't true enough to be a useful description.

[China]

 

 

 

I can guarantee he won't resign while democrats control Congress.  I'm fine with impeaching him.

[tshile]

Yeah that’s nice and all but not going to happen. Especially with a dem in the white house. 
 

[PleaseBlitz]

I’m surprised the Clarence Thomas story isn’t way bigger. He’s married to a goddamn insurrectionist. 

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I’m surprised the Clarence Thomas story isn’t way bigger. He’s married to a goddamn insurrectionist. 

 

Are you really surprised? 35-40% of this country will fully accept anything the GOP does with no problem. They are fully ready to accept authoritarian rule and all that comes with it. 

 

Trump asked Putin for info Biden this week and not a sound from the GOP. They are 100% behind all of the actions as long as they can get power. 

[China]

5 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I’m surprised the Clarence Thomas story isn’t way bigger. He’s married to a goddamn insurrectionist. 

 

McConnell's worried about it.  He gave a speech to try and preempt an impeachment of Thomas:

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

12 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

Are you really surprised? 35-40% of this country will fully accept anything the GOP does with no problem. They are fully ready to accept authoritarian rule and all that comes with it. 

 

Trump asked Putin for info Biden this week and not a sound from the GOP. They are 100% behind all of the actions as long as they can get power. 

Sure, but it’s like the 5th story down on the WaPo. Just because MAGA people are a-okay with corruption doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a huge topic for the 2/3 of Americans who are reasonable and understand why this might be a problem. 

[NoCalMike]

There's nothing new about Ginni Thomas's activism.  Because *this time* it could possibly implicate her in the election coup stuff, maybe it is different, but I rememeber way back in 2009 when the faux-Tea Party was starting to form, she was a big part of that too and there were a lot of the same stories & questions being raised, but I don't think mainstream press got as involved as they did this time..........for 48hrs at least.

[tshile]

15 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I’m surprised the Clarence Thomas story isn’t way bigger. He’s married to a goddamn insurrectionist. 

And my personal opinion is that if you think the involvement stops at just being married to her, then you’re a fool. 
 

as far I’m concerned it’s clear at least one scotus justice was in on overthrowing our entire country. 
 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

45 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

There's nothing new about Ginni Thomas's activism.  Because *this time* it could possibly implicate her in the election coup stuff, maybe it is different, but I rememeber way back in 2009 when the faux-Tea Party was starting to form, she was a big part of that too and there were a lot of the same stories & questions being raised, but I don't think mainstream press got as involved as they did this time..........for 48hrs at least.

 

Taking part in an actual "Storm-the-Capitol building in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power" insurrection is a very new part of Ginni Thomas' activism.  

[Ball Security]

21 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Taking part in an actual "Storm-the-Capitol building in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power" insurrection is a very new part of Ginni Thomas' activism.  

To me, the news this past week is not a surprise though.  It was reported back in January 2021 that she organized/paid for bus travel for the insurrectionists.  So these text messages are not that shocking.  I guess we had the initial shock back then, but not now.  It’s crazy.

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

There's nothing new about Ginni Thomas's activism.  Because *this time* it could possibly implicate her in the election coup stuff, maybe it is different, but I rememeber way back in 2009 when the faux-Tea Party was starting to form, she was a big part of that too and there were a lot of the same stories & questions being raised, but I don't think mainstream press got as involved as they did this time..........for 48hrs at least.

 

I remember when Bush 43 was anointed. Ginni was part of the group charged with identifying right wingers to replace Democrats in government appointed jobs. 

Edited March 31, 2022 by LadySkinsFan

[NoCalMike]

Yeah and let me clarify, I am not saying her activism isn't pushing ethical boundaries (among other things) I was just trying to say that she has been doing this for at least 20 years and has managed to escape culpability nor has Clarence Thomas been pushed much on recusing himself from anything.  I do get why when it comes to the insurrection stuff there is an even more worrisome element to her actions though.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

Should be 10 years, make it count!

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Clown ****

[Renegade7]

Some heros live long enough to see themselves become the villain, good luck with having your name attached to that "no" vote.

 

What I hope is someone did their homework in the constitutionality of this bill before it was voted on or suggested to be unconstitutional.

 

Because I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments anymore then having our time wasted by bills SCOTUS will strike down soon as it's challenged.

[China]

 

[China]

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by China

[TheGreatBuzz]

Definitely missed the "up" at the end of the sentence. 

 

edit:  @China you may want to spoiler that post for the naughty word.

Edited July 15, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz

[China]

Fact check: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has assets of less than $100,000

 

The claim: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a net worth of $29 million

Multiple posts spreading on Facebook claim Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has a net worth of $29 million.

 

“How in the hell is AOC worth $29 million,” reads an Aug. 4 Facebook post shared more than 400 times. “She was just bar tending (sic) the other day!”

 

A different Aug. 4 Facebook post mentions Ocasio-Cortez’s student loan debt, which is a topic she has spoken about many times. 

 

“AOC net worth is $29 million, on a government salary that paid $174k yearly,” reads the post, which was shared more than 170 times. “You better believe she can pay off her own damn student loan.”

 

But the claim is false. Ocasio-Cortez’s most recent financial disclosure, which was filed in 2021, shows her with assets between $3,003 and $45,000, including a 401(k) plan, and student loan debt between $15,001 and $50,000. 

 

Click on the link for the full article