Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics
- Thread starter iuwclurker
- Start date
If that's the case, then there's a whole lot of stupid in this country.
I don't think she's "stupid", but then I didn't think George W. Bush was "stupid" either. There are things that she is good at and things that she needs to work on (pretty much like every human on the planet).
Um...when was this golden age when Americans only voted with their brains and for experts?
But, now the more difficult question - if AOC drives you back to what you call the #NewGOP, what's different about that than the calculation that many voters in the GOP made in regard to Candidate Trump in the last election?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That question isn’t remotely difficult. Hilary Clinton was the more conservative of the two candidates. It was easy to bring myself to vote for her over Trump. Clinton was not a leftist like Warren or AOC or Sanders. Conservatives who felt compelled to vote against her and for Trump didn’t do it because of her politics. They did it because of who she is.
The further left that the Dems go nationally, the more us conservatives won’t be able to stomach pulling the lever for their national candidates. The more they trot people like Conor Lamb out, the easier it will be.
So, your problems with Trump are just policy? That's interesting take on it. You might want to chat with CoH about why he voted for Trump over Hillary. I'm a big fan of you as a poster, but humbly I'd suggest that the right answer is actually "nothing".
Did Trump ever fool you hook, line, and sinker. He's one of the most conservative presidents ever, except for his trade wars.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Of course they’re not just policy. He’s a despicable human being. For me, conservatism starts and pretty much stops with economics and foreign policy. Strong alliances augment our military and we stick to our institutions. He’s an economics know-nothing and there is no real word to describe his foreign policy other than cluster****.
I’m not sure what you’re criticizing.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
There was a period at the end of my sentence.
He's practically libertarian on a lot of the shit he's done.That's the key part of your post.
I guess it's just interesting what the "for me" for each person is. For some people, HRC was a horrible enough to vote for a President Trump while for you AOC is that horrible. For me, it would be a Stalin type, but that's ironically someone that Trump himself would vote for over Trump.
A), for decades/centuries tech has cost some jobs. lots of jobs.
but it created jobs at the same time, and through it all, US manufacturing and other good jobs, and overall wages, almost always went up.
manufacturing jobs and increased wages only stopped going up in the US, when off shoring started.
so what changed, tech or off shoring?
B), you can't stop or control tech.
offshoring you can.
concentrate on what you can control, not what you can't.
C) global markets can flourish, and you can still protect your jobs here.
if we didn't allow any imports at all, we'd still do a great export business, and it would be a huge net gain in jobs and wages.
and US companies can still supply foreign markets from offshore if they wish.
just not the US market.
D), it's not just manufacturing, it's service jobs.
we have to deal with "Bob" in Mumbai and "Sally" in Manila, and Rita in Nicaragua, every time we call customer service or tech support. (and they virtually never solve the problem. "i'm very sorry", is all they are really fluent in English on).
don't ever discount the number of jobs lost there.
all those jobs we could bring back tomorrow, without any repercussions from anybody.
D), don't confuse "democrats" with "The Democrat Party".
and democrats don't hate Wall St, they just want it controlled more.
as for The Democrat Party itself, it was purchased by Wall St a while back, and now is a wholly owned subsidiary thereof. (Wall St purchased the GOP yrs before it purchased the DNC, but they share ownership today and are now two branches of The Wall Street Party, not 2 separately controlled parties anymore).
E), if someone loses a good job for any reason, for them, that reason is all that matters..
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I disagree. You’re conflating Republicanship with conservatism. There is a Venn diagram there, but one is not subordinate to the other in today’s #NewGOP. Conservatism, classic liberalism, is free trade economics and respect for institutions (eg foreign alliances, family, etc).
There’s nothing conservative about Trump. He’s a blowhard populist who is most closely aligned with the libertarians as they are fairly populist in and of themselves.
So no, it’s not my definition of conservatism. It is THE definition. We can agree that there are many republicans that are not conservative.
Conservatives want low taxes, little or no regulations, freedom to ruin the environment, heterosexual military, white males controlling the power (even if that was implicit pre-Trump), strong military, family values (Trump checks that box by the example of his family), pro-law and order/police, against drugs, against abortion, pro-gun. Trump checks all those boxes. He goes against their grain on trade, respect for certain institutions (FBI, CIA but that's because he's a criminal rather than a political position) and foreign alliances.
Then one is left to wonder why you started your description of conservatism with "To me".
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see your position as all that different than the "but tax cuts" crowd that voted for President Trump. They tolerate his Presidency because they get what they want out of it. Their boogie woman was HRC. Yours is AOC. And I find it fascinating that you find AOC to be anywhere near as despicable a candidate as DT. I wouldn't vote for her in most cases, but I would against DT.
LOL! You have an extreme and cartoonish view of conservatives. I guess this view of conservatives translates to a corresponding view of liberals? You think they’re for high taxes (for the sake of high taxes alone), maximum regulation, pro-environment (only liberals like low pollution and trees, I guess), a homosexual and weak military, no white mails in power, oppose family values, pro-crime and anti-police, for legalizing heroin and opioids for all, pro-abortion and want to confiscate guns?
It’s only as ridiculous as your view of conservatives.
I agree with you in a vacuum. However, I’ve enjoyed reading a lot of the retrospectives of thoughtful conservatives like Max Boot. Looking back, there were and always have been elements of conservativism that spread the seeds for where we are now. While conservatism was built on the ideals you outline, it compromised its soul for political expediency. It’s not a huge leap from the Southern Strategy to the nativist Trump base. Conservatives did not ever push back on Fox News and instead rode that horse for all it was worth. Now that ride is too scary, many have gotten off and claimed that THIS isn’t conservatism when the reality is that it hasn’t been so for decades.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That’s not my point exactly. It’s that many never Trump conservatives today act completely floored about where we are now. The path is quite easy to follow.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’re putting a TON of words in my mouth here, hoosboot, and that’s not fair. I don’t find AOC anywhere near as despicable as Trump. I said she’s the left’s version of Trump, meaning a know-nothing populist that is winning races based on impossible and impractical promises that cater to peoples’ emotions. And I’m saying that she’s dumb for taking on all the exposure she’s getting while clearly being woefully unprepared.
I very much believe she means well (unlike Trump who’s doing it for himself), but I’m saying that it’d sure be swell if we could find a way to get serious actors back into politics that know what the hell they're talking about. Instead, the playbook is to denounce rich accomplished people as 1%ers as if it’s a disparaging status. So we’re left with phony business men know nothing’s like Trump and heart of gold know nothing’s like AOC. We deserve better.
I don't know about what we deserve but we will surely benefit from thoughtful and intelligent states-persons who truly believe in public service.
All that said I don't think AOC is disparaging 1%ers. Rather she is saying what many top economists are saying i.e., that we should dramatically raise taxes on the most wealthy. We should do it to: (1) raise more revenue; and (2) reduce wealth disparities and the disparity in power (both public and private) that attends those disparities.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s hard to convey (rapidly) clarity in this format. My criticism of criticizing 1%ers wasn’t pointed at AOC. It’s pointed at those in general who would use that as a line of attack or as a reason not to vote for somebody.
AOC is currently laughably naive and her hair is way too on fire, both of which are normal symptoms of age and experience. If she can keep her engine from destroying her in this age of sound bites, she may mature into a powerhouse on the left. She is smart (but not wise), she is articulate and she is attractive.
I have a lot of respect for what she has been able to do despite being about six clicks to the right of her act right now.
I have a lot of respect for what she has been able to do despite being about six clicks to the right of her act right now.
Politico is saying that she's in line to be appointed to the House Financial Services Committee, where she can team up with Maxine Waters. This may be a hoot.
My apologies. I don't mean to put words into your mouth. I connected you saying that candidates like AOC would push you back to the #NewGOP and the idea that you would vote for Trump over her. That's my bad. I guess I'm confused about where you are drawing your line. So, who would you vote for in a Presidential election between DT and AOC?
FWIW, I agree that it would be great to get serious actors who know what the hell they are talking about back into politics. Was that back when we had Dan Quayle or before that? The Watergate Babies? McCarty? Interestingly, the Watergate Babies are an interesting comparable for our current environment. Not the same, but maybe some lessons to be learned there.
I'm obviously not Ranger, but in a presidential race between AOC and DT (an impossibility, obviously) I'd do the same as I did in 2016. Vote for SOD (some other dude). I wouldn't vote for the 2018 version of AOC for class president.
A Politico article today suggests that her own party wouldn't mind seeing her go away.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-establisment-1093728
C'mon, Hank. That's just not answering the question. Doesn't it depend on who SOD is? What if SOD is short for "Sweet on Dictators" instead of "Some Other Dude"? I mean, if we're gonna look at all the possibilities...or you could just pretend your name is Ranger and answer the question. :>)
And, yeah, lots of people already have AOC fatigue.
Suppose you were in a position to decide the 2016 election between HRC and Trump...would you still be indifferent about that outcome?
That's the truth! I don't dislike her but I'm starting to hate hearing about her or reading about her in the news. She's a nobody (now) and still ignorant about way too much because she's learning. I still think she's hot but I've seen enough of her for a while.And, yeah, lots of people already have AOC fatigue.
I mean, if we are heading so far out into the giggleweeds as to accept your hypothetical scenario, might as well take it the rest of the way. Since I did as Hank did in 2016 and voted SOD, if given the opportunity to go back and make the deciding vote between the 2, I would auction my vote to the highest bidder (in cash ...I wouldn't dream of taking a check from either one of em), buy an unincorporated Island and start my own dictatorship, where never again would I have to choose from two wholly unworthy choices for POTUS.
Is she a nobody though? From the sound of that Politico piece it seems as if she's exerting quite a bit of influence in various ways, and shaping the behavior of many of her fellow members who seem afraid to run afoul of her.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I’ll answer the question. But I want to reiterate that I’m talking about national candidates (were AOC to become one) pushing me towards the #NewGOP. The existence of AOC as a rep of the Bronx doesn’t push me. But I do not accept that her radical positions “don’t affect us” outside of her district. That’s simply not true. She’s a vote and a vote affects us all.
In a race between the two, I’d likely vote for Trump. Even though he’s an economics moron, our markets and businesses will favor him and I think he’d do less damage to the economy than would she. This is more of a hunch than a fact - as you cannot imagine how lowly I think that man is intellectually.
So many of her positions would necessarily balloon the tax even for a guy like me that I couldn’t fathom such a self-inflicted wound.
That's interesting. I'd vote for AOC because I think her policy wants would be constrained while she would inflict less of the other damages to the office and the country that DT is inflicting.
I suspect that AOC may become a better-informed and more mature person (and potential candidate) in the several years until she is actually eligible to run for President. Lord knows, I wasn't this brilliant and wise
rolleyes when I was 28. I have less faith that DT will become better-informed and more mature in the next few years.
I just wanted to step back in and say that I'm still baffled by AOC's emergence as politics' new pet rock. In what passes for the political press -- and this discussion -- people talk about her because people talk about her. And because people are talking about her she must be important. It's like we're going to be voting for student council president.
People ought to calm the **** down about AOC. Have a Snickerdoodle and some warm milk. Maybe a bourbon or three.
People ought to calm the **** down about AOC. Have a Snickerdoodle and some warm milk. Maybe a bourbon or three.
I once admitted to being a liberal Democrat, but given Bernie and now AOC, I am feeling like a moderate.
I think our politics is in a giant petri dish and some unknown force is running experiments on how dumb can you be and support a democracy.
What would you rather watch, Beto having his teeth cleaned or AOC dancing outside her office?
And then there is Acosta showing us that walls don't work.
Last edited:
It's unfortunate that I was lampooning others who I said needed a drink while I was drinking an amaretto Manhattan. Yes, you could call me a philistine for putting Makers Mark into a rocks glass with a huge ice cube and a splash of Lazzaroni amaretto and swishing that around and smiling like a simpleton, but . . . wait, did I say that? Am I posting this? Never mind.
