Social The daily "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" thread.

[Sano]

heya there Sano,

that's a good post.

let me ask you a question; do you see any real, substantive differences between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez on a policy level?

i am asking, because i really don't see it.

yet the support for Mr. Sanders on this forum was prolific, and i find that this has not been the case for the young congresswoman from New York.

why do you think that is?

- IGIT

Politically they align on most things. Both want Medicare for all, both want money out of politics, want to raise the marginal tax rate for the rich, both want tuition free college, both want a new green deal, both want to raise the minimum wage, both opposed Paygo, and so on.

I like Sanders much more because he's been there and done that. He was the one who started all this. Because of him, minimum wage has been raised in several states, medicare for all is now on the table and student debt is part of the public conversation. He's a great man.

AOC panders more to the minorities, and I don't care a single bit about identity politics. Neither from the right nor the left. She's also very green and has said some stupid shit. With that, looking at policies and what she's voting for, I respect a lot of the work she's doing. She can reach out to people that Sanders can't, and she was responsible for getting the discussion about marginal tax rates out there. Her 70% was initially scoffed at, but it has been at that level for decades before. There's nothing radical about it.

This clip is pretty much spot on in that regard:


As for why people are going crazy? In part, she says some dumb things sometimes, and she's also actively trolling the republicans on social media. She doesn't back down and she's learning pretty fast. Also, she's a hispanic women and she's young, which conservatives can't stand. Goes back to the identity politics thing.

Bottom line, I don't give a shit about all that other stuff, I care about issues and voting records. I agree with her politics most of the time, as well as Sanders. Neither of them take PAC money and they are running for the people and middle class. Away with the neoliberal and corrupt corporate pupputs on either side.

 

[IGIT]

Politically they align on most things.

hi again Sano,

that's pretty much how i see it.

they seem really similar from a policy perspective.

one of them is young, brown, and has a name that sounds un-american (to some) and one of them is a white senior citizen.
that's just optics, though. in a legislative sense, they're the same person.

yet Mr. Sanders received chest thumping, prodigious support from the leftwing of the War Room and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, not-so-much.

right wingers seem to actually despise Ms. Ocasio-Cortez more than Mr. Sanders, even though its Mr. Sanders who is probably going to run for POTUS and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is just a junior member of the House.

its weird.

- IGIT

 

[uppercutbus]

I'd like to stick to the point you made initially. That AOC supports Putin, Assad, Kim-Jung Un, Maduro, Xi Jinping and more, and that they are her favorite commies/socialists. Do you have any evidence to suggest that is true? I can't find any. Do you think I will be able to find the sitting government praising at least 3 out of those 5 leaders listed?

Nice try. The article didn't say she "Supports Putin" etc. For example "supporting Assad" means backing his war effort. That's not what the article is saying. It's making a point about her attacks on capitalism the virtues of socialism not reflected in reality, the hypocrisy of leftist billionaires. It's not a scientific or court of law document. If we want to be literal it is wrong, but I'm sure you understand the colloquial language used.

For example she has never mentioned Kim Jong for instance as far as I know, or called him a favorite, but the article explains what the message it's trying to convey quite clearly forestalls a literal interpretation - which is what your arguing. The article goes through a list of people who aren't capitalists, something she rails on.

The difference is none of them are what you’d call ‘capitalists.’ In fact, most of them are what you’d call socialists, communists, and Marxists — supposedly the antithesis of capitalist.

There are many other examples of dictatorial, socialist leaders around the world who have pilfered and stolen their country’s wealth at the expense of their people, right after declaring themselves leader for life. Many are millionaires many times over; some are billionaires. But nearly all of them govern their countries under economic and political philosophies and ideologies backed by Ocasio-Cortez.

The reason the article lists them is because she attacked wealth, and those people are very wealthy.

I think the main confusion we are having is what you define socialist as. The politifact article did say that they would refer to him as an independant, socialist and a democratic socialist, but that is because they use socialist and democratic socialist interchangeably. From the article itself, it explains:

"Rather than Soviet-style governing, they think of and admire Nordic models of living.

These policies include "strong labor rights, progressive taxation, a robust array of public goods like child care, health care, and higher education," all advocated by Sanders, said Schwartz. With these positions, Sanders is technically a social democrat — he isn’t calling for a red revolution, just "a way of making capitalism humane," according to Peter Dreier, a leftist political theorist at Occidental College. So he’s not really a socialist, at least by the strict definition of the word.

"In what sense is (Sanders) a socialist? Basically he’s for more entitlements for the middle class. …That’s not the classical 19th century Marxist understanding or even the 20th century one. But maybe this is what socialism means today," said David Azerrad, who studies American political traditions at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It’s a pale counterfeit, a considerably diluted form than the original."

Here is what Sanders said all the way back in 1981:

“I’ve stayed away from calling myself a socialist,” Sanders said in the Boston Globe in the aftermath of his win in ‘81, “because I did not want to spend half my life explaining that I did not believe in the Soviet Union or in concentration camps.”

Two months later, in the Boston Phoenix, he said he didn’t want to be “a spokesman for socialism.”

He already wrote in 1997 in the book, Outsider in the House that;

“Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. I’m a democratic socialist.”

And from 2006 he was already making it very clear what examples he'd like the US to follow:

"In an interview with the Guardian in November 2006: “Twenty years ago, when people here thought about socialism they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania. Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people understand I’m talking about democratic socialism.”

and

"In an interview with Democracy Now in November 2006: “In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have health care as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America.”

So Bernie Sanders is a socialist, if that means a socialist is someone who believes in a strong middle class, healthcare for all, the rich paying their fair share, education for the people AND a market economy. That is Scandinavia, and that is what he promotes.

You're arguing with yourself friend. It's perfectly acceptable to call Bernie a socialist. Politifact is leftists too and agrees with this. It doesn't seem to care to split hairs over it in it's conclusion.

right wingers seem to actually despise Ms. Ocasio-Cortez more than Mr. Sanders, even though its Mr. Sanders who is probably going to run for POTUS and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is just a junior member of the House.

I don't see the mystery. Every one of Cortez's threads ridiculing her quote what she's being ridiculed/criticized on.

 

[ShadowRun]

Hahaha she’s a clown

 

[IGIT]

I don't see the mystery. Every one of Cortez's threads ridiculing her quote what she's being ridiculed/criticized on.

hi uppercutbus again,

but Ms. Ocasio Cortez and Mr. Sanders have essentially identical positions, from a policy perspective, lol.

and he's the one who is going to run from President (assuming he announces), not her. he's the one with the legislative juice, not her.

maybe my problem is that i don't use Twitter, idk.

i find the focus on Ms. Ocasio Cortez sort of peculiar. i'd figure that Mr. Sanders is the real enemy and the real threat to someone uncomfortable with Democratic Socialism - not her.

- IGIT

 

[Sano]

Nice try. The article didn't say she "Supports Putin" etc. For example "supporting Assad" means backing his war effort. That's not what the article is saying. It's making a point about her attacks on capitalism the virtues of socialism not reflected in reality, the hypocrisy of leftist billionaires. It's not a scientific or court of law document. If we want to be literal it is wrong, but I'm sure you understand the colloquial language used.

For example she has never mentioned Kim Jong for instance as far as I know, or called him a favorite, but the article explains what the message it's trying to convey quite clearly forestalls a literal interpretation - which is what your arguing. The article goes through a list of people who aren't capitalists, something she rails on.





The reason the article lists them is because she attacked wealth, and those people are very wealthy.


You're arguing with yourself friend. It's perfectly acceptable to call Bernie a socialist. Politifact is leftists too and agrees with this. It doesn't seem to care to split hairs over it in it's conclusion.

I don't see the mystery. Every one of Cortez's threads ridiculing her quote what she's being ridiculed/criticized on.

I don't know exactly what you nor what the article is arguing. I'm not trying to trap you in anything. You initiated with saying that they were her "favorite commies" and the articles is a headline saying "her favorite socialists". I'm sure you can see the issue with that statement here and the mistakes the article makes.

First is that you, and the article, are conflating various ideologies and getting them wrong. Putin is not a socialist, nor is Assad. Second is trying to tie AOC in with various brutal dictators. She is a progressive, same with Sanders, which is the exact opposite of someone like Putin. Can you explain to me how they are her favourite "socialists"? She has never shown any favor, nor praise, for them.

It's not splitting hairs. If you are using the term socialist as a Democratic Socialist then fine. That has nothing to do with Russia, Syria, China, South Africa and North Korea though. You might as well then claim that the Danish prime ministers is a socialist in line with Kim Jung Un. For us to not talk past each other it would help if you could tell me what you believe a socialist is.

 

[uppercutbus]

hi uppercutbus again,

but Ms. Ocasio Cortez and Mr. Sanders have essentially identical positions, from a policy perspective, lol.

and he's the one who is going to run from President (assuming he announces), not her. he's the one with the legislative juice, not her.

maybe my problem is that i don't use Twitter, idk.

i find the focus on Ms. Ocasio Cortez sort of peculiar. i'd figure that Mr. Sanders is the real enemy and the real threat - not her.

- IGIT

But that's not really why people make threads on her, it's her outlandish and entertaining quotes.

I think Bernie as a threat is overstated. Look how old he is and he has already failed once already, I think most people can safely dismiss him as a candidate in fact it could be good for the opposition for him to run again. His socialist ideas can be passed on though. Cortez is with establishment dems and wants to abolish ICE, not sure if Bernie is on the same page on things like that.

You initiated with saying that they were her "favorite commies" and the articles is a headline saying "her favorite socialists". I'm sure you see the issue with what you're saying here and the mistakes the article makes.

First is that you, and the article, are conflating various ideologies and still getting them wrong. Putin is not a socialist, nor is Assad. Second is trying to tie AOC in with various brutal dictators. She is a progressive, same with Sanders, which is the exact opposite of someone like Putin. Can you explain to me how they are her favourite "socialists"? She has never shown any favor, nor praise, for them.

She attacked capitalism and wealth accumulated via capitalism are you not seeing the point of the article? Here is the conclusion quote again:

The difference is none of them are what you’d call ‘capitalists.’ In fact, most of them are what you’d call socialists, communists, and Marxists — supposedly the antithesis of capitalist.

There are many other examples of dictatorial, socialist leaders around the world who have pilfered and stolen their country’s wealth at the expense of their people, right after declaring themselves leader for life. Many are millionaires many times over; some are billionaires. But nearly all of them govern their countries under economic and political philosophies and ideologies backed by Ocasio-Cortez.

 

[IGIT]

hey there uppercutbus, last post for now, i gotta head to work,

But that's not really why people make threads on her, it's her outlandish and entertaining quotes.

Mr. Sanders has been saying pretty much the same thing as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez though, and for much longer.

I think Bernie as a threat is overstated. Look how old he is and he has already failed once already, I think most people can safely dismiss him as a candidate in fact it could be good for the opposition for him to run again.

i agree that the threat Mr. Sanders poses is overstated, but not because of his age - its because his dogma is repulsive to most centrists on either side of the aisle.

His socialist ideas can be passed on though. Cortez is with establishment dems and wants to abolish ICE, not sure if Bernie is on the same page on things like that.

you're not sure?

this will help clarify, then;

In 2002 I voted against the creation of DHS and the establishment of ICE. That was the right vote. Now, it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
- Bernie Sanders July 3rd, 2018.

i gotta go, good talking with you!

- IGIT

 

[Sano]

She attacked capitalism and wealth accumulated via capitalism are you not seeing the point of the article? Here is the conclusion quote again:

I can see that the article says that somehow because Cortez is a democratic socialist, then she backs the ideology and economy of Russia, China, North Korea, South Africa and so on, but I as we've talked about they did not make that connection. Those countries have vastly different ideologies and economies in the first place, which we talked a little about before. If you think about it, as someone who believes in working class rights, a strong democracy and a market economy, can you really say that her ideology and economic policies are the same as Kim-Jung Un?

 

[uppercutbus]

Mr. Sanders has been saying pretty much the same thing as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez though, and for much longer.

You're asking why people are giving her attention when she's just Young Bernie? If you ask me her quotes are entertaining and without much substance on implementation ("feelz > realz", "you just pay for it" etc.), if you ask another person they'll say she's "young and enthusiastic" and something about "media loves that" etc.

i agree that the threat Mr. Sanders poses is overstated, but not because of his age - its because his dogma is repulsive to most centrists on either side of the aisle.

If his ideas are repulsive to both sides, wouldn't that also apply to AOC? They've both been saying "the same things".

I can see that the article says that somehow because Cortez is a democratic socialist, then she backs the ideology and economy of Russia, China, North Korea, South Africa and so on, but I as we've talked about they did not make that connection. Those countries have vastly different ideologies and economies in the first place, which we talked a little about before. If you think about it, as someone who believes in working class rights, a strong democracy and a market economy, can you really say that her ideology and economic policies are the same as Kim-Jung Un?

The people listed "most of them are what you’d call socialists, communists, and Marxists — supposedly the antithesis of capitalist." You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. The message of the article isn't hard decipher.

 

[Brodels]

Now she wants to get rid of airplanes and renovate buildings across the country.

Hey what is up with the story about her being fired from Hot Dog On A Stick in 2008? I don't care that Snopes says it isn't true.

 

[Sano]

The people listed "most of them are what you’d call socialists, communists, and Marxists — supposedly the antithesis of capitalist." You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. The message of the article isn't hard decipher.

Erroneously piling a group of dictators and authoritarians together and then erroneously trying to lump a progressive together with them as a way to smear that person with no connection between the two parties. Yes, the message is quite clear. When you think about it, does the fact that I want accurate information mean that I'm overthinking it? When you go through what we've talked about, is there any part of you that might raise some questions about the legitimacy of that article, and wonder if it is in fact providing feelz over realz?

 

[uppercutbus]

Erroneously piling a group of dictators and authoritarians together and then erroneously trying to lump a progressive together with them as a way to smear that person with no connection between the two parties. Yes, the message is quite clear. When you think about it, does the fact that I want accurate information mean that I'm overthinking it? When you go through what we've talked about, is there any part of you that might raise some questions about the legitimacy of that article, and wonder if it is in fact providing feelz over realz?

So are they capitalist or not? That's the crux of the point you're making with the article. She directly attacks capitalism and the wealth attained from it. The article points out those who aren't capitalist yet very rich with background commentary on the failures of socialism.

 

[Sano]

So are they capitalist or not? That's the crux of the point you're making with the article. She directly attacks capitalism and the wealth attained from it. The article points out those who aren't capitalist yet very rich with background commentary on the failures of socialism.

So because she has criticisms of capitalism and wealth inequality, that must mean that she supports North Korea and Russia? Do you see how one doesn't follow the other? I have plenty of criticisms against aspects of capitalism, does that mean that I support Putin? I can tell you I don't. I also believe that capitalism, if regulated and kept free from corruptive elements, is a good thing.

To answer your questions, most of them have capitalism in various forms yes, the ones that have market economies. However the state in many cases have most of the power. In Russia about 50% of the corporations are state owned, which would make it about 50/50. Russia is an oligarchy though. A few select families control the majority of the wealth and power. It's not unlike how the wealthiest people in the US lobby the state to gain control over the legislation and market, however in Russia they just skip the pretend part and use violence.

 

[uppercutbus]

So because she has criticisms of capitalism and wealth inequality, that must mean that she supports North Korea and Russia?

she doesn't doesn't support regimes, she supports socialism though. The article is quite clear on the message it's making.

Regular Poindexter over here.

 

[Sano]

she doesn't doesn't support regimes, she supports socialism though. The article is quite clear on the message it's making.

Regular Poindexter over here.

But she supports Democratic Socialism and the Scandinavian model, just like Sanders. She said this many times, here in her 60 minutes interview:

"In an interview with Anderson Cooper, the newly sworn-in House Rep laughed when asked if what she has in mind for the US mirrors the oppressive socialist regimes found in the former Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela.

'Of course not. What we have in mind and what my policies most closely re-resemble are what we see in the UK, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden,' Ocasio-Cortez said."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-wants-socialist-policies-modeled-Sweden.html

Looking through her policies and voting record, her economic and philosophical ideology (phrase from the article) is in line with Norhern and Western Europe, not Russia, North Korea and Syria. Are you beginning to see where the mistakes are in the article? Both with lumping various ideologies together into one pool, and also faulty attributing those ideologies to AOC?

 

[uppercutbus]

But she supports Democratic Socialism and the Scandinavian model, just like Sanders. She said this many times, here in her 60 minutes interview:

"In an interview with Anderson Cooper, the newly sworn-in House Rep laughed when asked if what she has in mind for the US mirrors the oppressive socialist regimes found in the former Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela.

'Of course not. What we have in mind and what my policies most closely re-resemble are what we see in the UK, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden,' Ocasio-Cortez said."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-wants-socialist-policies-modeled-Sweden.html

Looking through her policies and voting record, her economic and philosophical ideology (phrase from the article) is in line with Norhern and Western Europe, not Russia, North Korea and Syria. Are you beginning to see where the mistakes are in the article? Both with lumping various ideologies together into one pool, and also faulty attributing those ideologies to AOC?

I don't have a problem calling Sweden and Finland socialist colloquially, but technically they aren't and also have some of the highest taxes in the world.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

UK is only called socialist from a pure capitalist perspective.

"Closely resembles" is a convenient get-out clause. She is quite anti-capitalism, even saying "capitalism won't last forever" when all European countries have mixed, market-based economies that are dominated by private capital. America has to replicate Nordic countries with some of the highest taxes in the world? No, if we are looking to Europe for inspiration also look at France, which is fed up with taxes.

 

[IGIT]

hi uppercutbus,

You're asking why people are giving her attention when she's just Young Bernie? If you ask me her quotes are entertaining and without much substance on implementation ("feelz > realz", "you just pay for it" etc.), if you ask another person they'll say she's "young and enthusiastic" and something about "media loves that" etc.

i am a little perplexed why she's getting so much attention, sure. she's just a junior member of congress who has adopted the Sanders platform.

i figure its because she's really young and a woman and a minority (i'm not adding that to point the finger of racism, i just figure that it makes her different, visually, so it helps her stand out).

If his ideas are repulsive to both sides, wouldn't that also apply to AOC? They've both been saying "the same things".

yep, absolutely. Mr. Sanders' platform, which it seems Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has adopted, is radioactive to centrists in congress.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Now she wants to get rid of airplanes and renovate buildings across the country.

hello Brodels, nice to meet you,

that's because she sees mankind driving the planet off the edge of a cliff - and to be honest, her assessment isn't out of line with the scientific consensus - so she's ringing the alarm bell (because she's young enough that she'll live to see this occur).

i can't blame her, but i'm with most Americans on this issue.

i believe that mankind is degrading the environment and we have pretty much reached the point of no return...but i also don't care, since there are dinner reservations to made, vacations to take, pot to be smoked, and good times to be had.

it's going to be someone else's problem and i wish them all the best luck in the world in dealing with it...but i don't want my own life to be too inconvenienced in the meantime.

- IGIT

 

[PHATV]

(from the link you posted) AOC laims Crazy 'Green New Deal' Document FROM HER OWN WEBSITE Is a Fake!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...deal-document-from-her-own-website-is-a-fake/

Right. She is already worse than long-time swamp-dwellers as regards honesty and character. Amazingly good at this crooked politician stuff. Perhaps she's really found her calling, here.