Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Toni]

But we haven't seen much of a Religious Left, and I haven't seen anything like that article before or since in anything that AOC has said or written.

The rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 | TheHill - she's had quite a year.

• Introducing the Green New Deal
• Endorsing Sen. Sanders in the 2020 Democratic Primary
• Going head-to-head with Speaker Nancy Pelosi
• Responding to President Trump’s attacks
• Grilling Michael Cohen

The biggest political upsets of the decade | TheHill
Listing AOC's victory over Joe Crowley alongside two comparable ones: Dave Brat's victory over Eric Cantor and Donald Trump's victory over several Republican politicians and his Democratic opponent.

Dave Brat was an obscure economics professor who defeated Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in 2014. Eric Cantor had a long career:

• VA House of Delegates: 1992 - 2001
• US House of Reps: 2001 - 2014

However, Dave Brat was not very distinguished in the House, and in 2018, he was defeated by Democrat Abigail Spanberger.

Donald Trump was a businessman who ran for President in the Reform Party in 1999 and 2000, before dropping out of that party's primaries early in 2000. His opponents in 2016:

• Ted Cruz, Texas Solicitor General 2003 - 2008, US Senator 2013 -
• John Kasich, Ohio Senator 1979 - 1983, US Rep 1983 - 2001, Ohio Governor 2011 -
• Marco Rubio, Florida Rep 2000 - 2008, US Senator 2011 -
• Ben Carson (brain surgeon)
• Jeb Bush, Florida Sec'y of Commerce 1987 - 1988, Florida Governor 1999 - 2007
• Rand Paul, US Senator 2011 -
• Chris Christie, Morris County Board member 1995 - 1997, US Attorney 2002 - 2008, New Jersey Governor 2010 -
• Mike Huckabee, Arkansas Lt Governor 1993 - 1996, Arkansas Governor 1996 - 2007
• Carly Fiorina (businesswoman)
• Jim Gilmore, Virginia Attorney General 1994 - 1997, Virginia Governor 1998 - 2002
• Rick Santorum, US Rep 1991 - 1995, US Senator 1995 - 2007
• Rick Perry, Texas Rep 1985 - 1991, Texas Agriculture Comm 1991 - 1999, Texas Lt Governor 1999 - 2000, Texas Governor 2000 - 2015
• Scott Walker, Wisconsin Ass'm 1993 - 2002, Milwaukee County Exec 2002 - 2010, Wisconsin Governor 2011 -
• Bobby Jindal, US Ass't Sec'y of Health and Huamn Services 2001 - 2003, US House 2005 - 2008, Louisiana Governor 2008 - 2016
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Rep 1993 - 1995, US Rep 1995 - 2003, US Senator 2003 -
• George Pataki, Peekskill Mayor 1981 - 1984, New York Ass'm 1985 - 1992, New York Senate 1993 - 1994, New York Governor 1995 - 2006

(I've cut off in 2016) Some of his opponents had a lot of political experience.

By comparison, AOC's run for office was her first run, and Joe Crowley was in office for 20 years. Her political experience before her run was being an intern for Senator Teddy Kennedy in her college years and campaigning for Bernie Sanders in 2016.

To be fair, Crowley was not much of a campaigner. He was a Dem machine operative who inherited the seat.

He also isn't as pretty and hasn't got tits, so he was on the back foot from day one of the campaign.

Yeah, I've noticed how women have taken over state and national races with their tits and all.......

 

[Derec]

Yeah, I've noticed how women have taken over state and national races with their tits and all.......

Worked in Germany, kind of.

 

[Toni]

In vast majority of cases an in-state public university will be significantly cheaper than a private one.

Sticker price is not the actual price well qualified students pay if they indicate that they are also considering a more local state./public university. My kid is really smart (National Merit) but honestly, it only took mentioning that while X Fancy Pants Private was their top choice, the perfectly decent public university an hour away was a very close second to get the price lowered a LOT. Honestly: no ninja level negotiation skills. It was just kid and me (and kid furious at me when I privately said I was not willing to allow kid to take on that kind of debt for an undergrad degree), not even hubby who is actually a really good negotiator.

Again: I'm not writing this to make a point or to brag but to let other parents know: sticker price is only the starting point and don't be afraid to negotiate.

On paper, those things you listed do seem quite impressive. But they do not fit her life after college (working as a bartender instead of getting a real job)

Bartending IS a real job that requires a great deal of skill and is well paying as well. She did that and waitressing because those jobs can pay very well, much more that starter career positions and she was trying to help her mother fight off foreclosure. She also started a publishing house and did some work for non-profits and worked on campaigns for other politicians. We should all be such selfish slackers.

nor her lack of understanding today.

She's not the one who doesn't understand. You are simply confused that someone who is intelligent and well educated has reached far different conclusions than you have. I don't know why. You see a lot of the same thing every time you are on this board.

It's as if her life so far is one of two halves. Maybe something happened in college. It's quite baffling if all those honors she got in high school are real.

No, it's quite consistent. It's just not in agreement with whatever stereotype you have formed in your head of what someone should be or think or do. Maybe hang out with some women who aren't prostitutes who are paid to say and do whatever you want.

And by the way, I really hate the idiotic "Latinx" neologism. It's peak wokeism.

It must be hard, being all left behind by newfangled words and all.

Her understanding of both seems to greatly surpass yours but perhaps that's because you confuse ideology with understanding and comprehension.

I think you do. What has she said that you think is so smart? Certainly not her GND push.
Her understanding of international affairs is weak as well. She

I think that she is very idealistic, yes, but that doesn't make her wrong. It will take a while for the world to catch up with her and to come to terms with the Green New Deal--and to reshape it into more realistically accomplished goals and policies--and then to stretch beyond.

But if you cannot be idealistic in your youth, when will you be? I'm happy that she has dreams which are intelligent, forward thinking, unselfish and reachable. So it will take some hard work and a lot of convincing. I think she's up to the task. And a lot of us will be left in her dust.

I think I asked before and I don't know whether you missed my question or simply didn't answer--or maybe I missed your answer, in which case I offer my apologies: What college did YOU got to?

I did answer it before, but I am not sure to what level of detail. Easy to miss in a thread 100s of pages long I understand.
Let me answer your first question - Georgia Tech. Public university, very well ranked. And I went almost tuition-free thanks to the generous contributions of Georgia lottery players. It truly is a voluntary tax on math-challenged.

I did miss it. Thanks for being patient and kind enough to repost.

For one, I understand what money is. I understand that conjuring five times the US GDP out of thin air to pay for a pet project that is only tangentially related to climate is an incredibly stupid idea. Even if somebody named a space pebble after you as a second prize in a high school competition.

Because you went to an engineering school?

Sorry, but I see no signs that education or knowledge has trumped ideology in your posts.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest Of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds - with the Flesch-Kincaid test, which finds average lengths of words and sentences and calculates a readability score from them. Here is the grade levels of some of the presidents' speeches.

Trump 4.6, Truman 5.9, Bush I 6.7, Bush II 7.4, FDR 7.4, LBJ 7.6, Reagan 8.0, Kennedy 8.8, Clinton 9.3, Nixon 9.4, Eisenhower 9.4, Ford 9.4, Obama 9.7, Carter 10.7, Hoover 11.3

A certain well-known "stable genius" scores very low.

I used Readable | Free Readability Test Tool on transcripts of three interviews over at The Intercept, and in them, AOC has a 9th-grade reading level, respectable by the standards of those presidents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He also isn't as pretty and hasn't got tits, so he was on the back foot from day one of the campaign.

Yeah, I've noticed how women have taken over state and national races with their tits and all.......

Warren has been riding her puppies all campaign long!

 

[Derec]

Surely you do not believe that AOC was responsible for low voter turnout? It's hardly her fault if her opponent was so complacent that he didn't care to mount an actual campaign.

So she benefited from JD targeting a very safe Dem district with an incumbent who did not put up enough of a fight.
In other words, she fell ass backwards into it.

AOC certainly has invested a great deal of energy and effort into winning her office and into serving her district well.

I disagree that she is serving her district well. What has she done for the 14th since she got elected?

Too bad her predecessor did not.

Do you have any reason to believe Crowley did not serve his district well?

Thinking you can do a better job and being willing to do it is not 'stabbing someone in the back.' He'd had 10 terms. Was he entitled to office for life? If he wasn't interested enough in defending his seat, he deserved to lose it.

I do not think he was entitled for life, but at the same time, JD (who are, to reiterate again, the force behind AOC - the run was not her idea) deliberately targeted Democratic seats with incumbents they deemed insufficiently extremist. JD are nothing but a left version of the teabaggers. I heard the term "herbal tea party" used for them ...

And isn't this all ironic? I thought you were opposed to holding office for life and also that you blamed Hillary for not taking Wisconsin seriously....

There is a big difference in not taking a purple state seriously in the general direction and primarying a sitting Democratic congressman. The two scenarios are nothing alike.

I think the real issue is that it bothers you to see a woman, especially a young, attractive woman in office.

No. It bothers me that she is an ignorant socialist. I lived through end stages of actually existing socialism after all.

Well, of course you don't think she's well informed or intelligent. She's a young woman. And she holds positions that you don't agree with.

No, I don't think she is well informed and intelligent because of her positions and statements.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of private universities being expensive compared to public ones. I just can't stomach reading that family anecdote over and over again as if it proves anything.

Depends on where they live. What is your personal hard on for the idea that no working class kid, especially if they are not lily white can dare to go to a private school? Frankly, good for her that she went to BU! It's a great school with a wonderful program.

My issue is not that she is "working class". AOC didn't even grow up "working class". Her father owned an architecture firm for fuck's sake!
No, my issue is that she goes to a fancy private university, accumulates student debt and then whines about how the government should pay off all the student loans off.

She certainly is well informed for her current job.

Just stating that over and over again is not demonstrating anything.

She disagrees with you. Where did you become so well educated on economics?

I took the required econ class for my degree and besides that, I read a lot. It does not take much formal economics education to realize that AOC's ideas are foolish.

f you say so. Perhaps things work differently here in America.

Laws of economics are universal. America is not magically exempt from the laws of economics.

No, I think you don't understand GND or economics or half of what you write.

I actually do. I have read the resolution and the faq when they got released, and most importantly I understood them. I understand that it crams a whole smorgasbord of programs that have nothing to do with climate (like federal jobs guarantees) into an ostensibly climate-centered GND. I understand that it would cost five times the entire US GDP.

Now could you offer some of your own understanding? Because all you have been doing is claim that I don't understand this or that, but have offered nothing of substance.

You cannot tell the difference between disagreeing with how to achieve something or about what goals should be achieved or attempted and actual understanding.

I think you are projecting and that this is really your affliction. Because I disagree with you and AOC, it must be because I go to

altright and incel sites

which is bullshit.

Again: did you go to college?

I have already answered that.

 

[Derec]

Again: I'm not writing this to make a point or to brag but to let other parents know: sticker price is only the starting point and don't be afraid to negotiate.

Yes, we all know that. Still, private schools are more expensive than in state public schools for vast majority of people.

Bartending IS a real job

Not for a university graduate from a prestigious private university. One can bartend without a college degree.

that requires a great deal of skill and is well paying as well.

Depends where and when you work I guess. Base pay is low, so it depends on tips.

She did that and waitressing because those jobs can pay very well, much more that starter career positions and she was trying to help her mother fight off foreclosure.

I doubt bartending/waitressing pays more than a starting salary as an analyst or something. But it is easier to take time off for political activism.

She also started a publishing house

What did that publishing house publish?

and did some work for non-profits and worked on campaigns for other politicians. We should all be such selfish slackers.

I know she worked for Bernie in 2016 and also gallivanted around South Dakota protesting oil. I guess that would be tough to pull off with a real job.

She's not the one who doesn't understand. You are simply confused that someone who is intelligent and well educated has reached far different conclusions than you have. I don't know why. You see a lot of the same thing every time you are on this board.

I don't have a much better opinion about the level of understanding of socialists on this board either, if that is any consolation.

No, it's quite consistent. It's just not in agreement with whatever stereotype you have formed in your head of what someone should be or think or do. Maybe hang out with some women who aren't prostitutes who are paid to say and do whatever you want.

Surest sign that I am winning the argument is you mentioning prostitutes. It's like last post with incel stuff. You are getting predictable.

It must be hard, being all left behind by newfangled words and all.

Meh. Some words are just stupid. This being one of them.

I think that she is very idealistic, yes, but that doesn't make her wrong. It will take a while for the world to catch up with her and to come to terms with the Green New Deal--and to reshape it into more realistically accomplished goals and policies--and then to stretch beyond.

Yes, she is idealistic. And no, I don't think "world" will catch up with her GND idea. Not that I don't think we need to do more for climate, but GND is primarily about leftist programs that are not even about climate. And it excludes nuclear as a solution even though nuclear has one of the lowest CO₂ emission rates of any energy source and is by far the safest as measured by deaths per unity energy produced.

But if you cannot be idealistic in your youth, when will you be?

She is old enough for some realism to set in. She is 30, not 20. She is no longer a "yute".

I'm happy that she has dreams which are intelligent, forward thinking, unselfish and reachable. So it will take some hard work and a lot of convincing. I think she's up to the task. And a lot of us will be left in her dust.

Can you elaborate why exactly you think her ideas are particularly intelligent? Not just state that they are, but explain.

Because you went to an engineering school?

Yes, where you learn that in the real world, there are many limits to what you can do.

Sorry, but I see no signs that education or knowledge has trumped ideology in your posts.

It's ok. I forgive you.

 

[Toni]

Yes, we all know that. Still, private schools are more expensive than in state public schools for vast majority of people.

I used to make that assumption but I'm really not so sure that it's true. I think a lot of people simply believe the sticker price.

Not for a university graduate from a prestigious private university. One can bartend without a college degree.

Yes, one can. That doesn't make it easier to land a job with flexible hours or the same earning power that AOC was probably bringing down. Remember: her first goal was to help her mother stave of financial crisis. So she made the pragmatic decision to earn as much as she could at that moment.

You seem to regard a university degree as a tech degree that one must use explicitly to earn a living in that particular field in order to have benefited from it. That's an extremely narrow and limiting viewpoint and one that does not reflect reality.

that requires a great deal of skill and is well paying as well.

Depends where and when you work I guess. Base pay is low, so it depends on tips

That would depend on where and the circumstances. I would imagine a bright, pretty young woman with an outgoing personality would earn a lot in such a position. Why look down on bartenders, Derec?.

She did that and waitressing because those jobs can pay very well, much more that starter career positions and she was trying to help her mother fight off foreclosure.

I doubt bartending/waitressing pays more than a starting salary as an analyst or something. But it is easier to take time off for political activism.

I don't doubt it at all. Plus she was specifically looking so that she would be near her mother to help out--and also to pursue work she is passionate about. Smart move.

She also started a publishing house

What did that publishing house publish?

I'll let you google that one. You could use the exercise.

and did some work for non-profits and worked on campaigns for other politicians. We should all be such selfish slackers.

I know she worked for Bernie in 2016 and also gallivanted around South Dakota protesting oil. I guess that would be tough to pull off with a real job.

You sound older than my dad. Bartending is a real job. It's one that I doubt you would be successful at. I know that I would not be.

I don't have a much better opinion about the level of understanding of socialists on this board either, if that is any consolation.

I don't need any consolation or explanation.

Surest sign that I am winning the argument is you mentioning prostitutes. It's like last post with incel stuff. You are getting predictable.

I'm sure we are both predictable to some extent. But seriously, your world view seems awfully narrow and stunted.

It must be hard, being all left behind by newfangled words and all.

Meh. Some words are just stupid. This being one of them.

Yes, she is idealistic. And no, I don't think "world" will catch up with her GND idea. Not that I don't think we need to do more for climate, but GND is primarily about leftist programs that are not even about climate. And it excludes nuclear as a solution even though nuclear has one of the lowest CO₂ emission rates of any energy source and is by far the safest as measured by deaths per unity energy produced.

In order for real change with regards to the climate to happen, it will require changes in how we see ourselves and our society, not just throwing money at some solutions. Reagan ushered in crass mass consumerism to 'save' the economy and really drove a stake in the heart of environmental policy at the same time. We really do need to change how we look at the world.

But if you cannot be idealistic in your youth, when will you be?

She is old enough for some realism to set in. She is 30, not 20. She is no longer a "yute".

She's still pretty young and she's certainly in a position where her ideals and her ability to shape her message and meaning will be tested--hard.

I'm happy that she has dreams which are intelligent, forward thinking, unselfish and reachable. So it will take some hard work and a lot of convincing. I think she's up to the task. And a lot of us will be left in her dust.

Can you elaborate why exactly you think her ideas are particularly intelligent? Not just state that they are, but explain.

It takes a lot of intelligence and understanding to realize that social structures are very much connected with the way we use energy. To alter our energy use, to become more efficient, we need to also provide real change to how people actually live. That includes having access to jobs that provide a living wage for families, access to excellent health care and education and jobs training. People who are happy do not need to buy a bunch of stuff to reduce their stress and to convince themselves they are happy.

Because you went to an engineering school?

Yes, where you learn that in the real world, there are many limits to what you can do.

Yeah--where ideals and dreams and imagination go to die. It takes courage and imagination as well as skill and knowledge to push the limits of what we can do. If we simply respected 'the limits' we'd still be hitting each other over the head with rocks around a firepit. That is now relegated to certain demographics on certain campuses. And political rallies.

You really should read a lot more Shakespeare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest Of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds - with the Flesch-Kincaid test, which finds average lengths of words and sentences and calculates a readability score from them. Here is the grade levels of some of the presidents' speeches.

Trump 4.6, Truman 5.9, Bush I 6.7, Bush II 7.4, FDR 7.4, LBJ 7.6, Reagan 8.0, Kennedy 8.8, Clinton 9.3, Nixon 9.4, Eisenhower 9.4, Ford 9.4, Obama 9.7, Carter 10.7, Hoover 11.3

A certain well-known "stable genius" scores very low.

I used Readable | Free Readability Test Tool on transcripts of three interviews over at The Intercept, and in them, AOC has a 9th-grade reading level, respectable by the standards of those presidents.

I disagree here--the level at which a president speaks in public says little about the level they can speak at. A speech is going to be tailored to the audience. His Flatulence is speaking to the uneducated, you would expect a lower speaking level.

A better test of his level would be his tweets but I doubt tweets are long enough for such an analysis.

 

[Trausti]

Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest Of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds - with the Flesch-Kincaid test, which finds average lengths of words and sentences and calculates a readability score from them. Here is the grade levels of some of the presidents' speeches.

Trump 4.6, Truman 5.9, Bush I 6.7, Bush II 7.4, FDR 7.4, LBJ 7.6, Reagan 8.0, Kennedy 8.8, Clinton 9.3, Nixon 9.4, Eisenhower 9.4, Ford 9.4, Obama 9.7, Carter 10.7, Hoover 11.3

A certain well-known "stable genius" scores very low.

I used Readable | Free Readability Test Tool on transcripts of three interviews over at The Intercept, and in them, AOC has a 9th-grade reading level, respectable by the standards of those presidents.

I disagree here--the level at which a president speaks in public says little about the level they can speak at. A speech is going to be tailored to the audience. His Flatulence is speaking to the uneducated, you would expect a lower speaking level.

A better test of his level would be his tweets but I doubt tweets are long enough for such an analysis.

True dat.

 

[Toni]

Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest Of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds - with the Flesch-Kincaid test, which finds average lengths of words and sentences and calculates a readability score from them. Here is the grade levels of some of the presidents' speeches.

Trump 4.6, Truman 5.9, Bush I 6.7, Bush II 7.4, FDR 7.4, LBJ 7.6, Reagan 8.0, Kennedy 8.8, Clinton 9.3, Nixon 9.4, Eisenhower 9.4, Ford 9.4, Obama 9.7, Carter 10.7, Hoover 11.3

A certain well-known "stable genius" scores very low.

I used Readable | Free Readability Test Tool on transcripts of three interviews over at The Intercept, and in them, AOC has a 9th-grade reading level, respectable by the standards of those presidents.

I disagree here--the level at which a president speaks in public says little about the level they can speak at. A speech is going to be tailored to the audience. His Flatulence is speaking to the uneducated, you would expect a lower speaking level.

A better test of his level would be his tweets but I doubt tweets are long enough for such an analysis.

I don't disagree--but I think that Trump's mental capacities have declined to the point where 4th grade level is a reach for him.

I've never liked the man but I don't write that out of snark or with any kind of joy or gladness. I think it's shameful that anyone so lacking in integrity and common decency was installed as even a dogcatcher, much less POTUS. But I'm not tallking about his lack of integrity or common decency: I'm talking about his mental decline. Sure,he blustered some bizarre version of common man but he doesn't even make sense half the time anymore. Not unless they can get enough meds in him to keep him close to the script for the occasion.

 

[lpetrich]

So she benefited from JD targeting a very safe Dem district with an incumbent who did not put up enough of a fight.
In other words, she fell ass backwards into it.

No she didn't. It took a LOT of work on her part, and she has the worn-out shoes to show for it.

I disagree that she is serving her district well. What has she done for the 14th since she got elected?

She has paid MUCH more attention to her constituents than Joe Crowley had, if frequency of town-hall events is any guide.

No. It bothers me that she is an ignorant socialist. I lived through end stages of actually existing socialism after all.

She calls herself a socialist, but she is really a social democrat. In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Might Just Be the Future of the Democratic Party | Vogue (June 25, 2018): After discussing the Democratic Socialists of America, AOC continues

When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic and social wellness, at the end of the day. To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity. It’s asserting the value of saying that the America we want and the America that we are proud of is one in which all children can access a dignified education. It’s one in which no person is too poor to have the medicines they need to live. It’s to say that no individual’s civil rights are to be violated. And it’s also to say that we need to really examine the historical inequities that have created much of the inequalities—both in terms of economics and social and racial justice—because they are intertwined. This idea of, like, race or class is a false choice. Even if you wanted to separate those two things, you can’t separate the two, they are intrinsically and inextricably tied. There is no other force, there is no other party, there is no other real ideology out there right now that is asserting the minimum elements necessary to lead a dignified American life.

My issue is not that she is "working class". AOC didn't even grow up "working class". Her father owned an architecture firm for fuck's sake!

It was not a very big one, however, and living in Yorktown Heights was a financial stretch for the family. She recalls her mother cleaning houses to supplement the family's income, and she recalls grumbling over her family having such cheap meals as rice and beans. Part of that was so she could have such things as piano lessons, and in "Knock Down The House", we have some home video of her paying "Silent Night" on a piano in a church.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No she didn't. It took a LOT of work on her part, and she has the worn-out shoes to show for it.

She has paid MUCH more attention to her constituents than Joe Crowley had, if frequency of town-hall events is any guide.

No. It bothers me that she is an ignorant socialist. I lived through end stages of actually existing socialism after all.

She calls herself a socialist, but she is really a social democrat. In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Might Just Be the Future of the Democratic Party | Vogue (June 25, 2018): After discussing the Democratic Socialists of America, AOC continues

When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic and social wellness, at the end of the day. To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity. It’s asserting the value of saying that the America we want and the America that we are proud of is one in which all children can access a dignified education. It’s one in which no person is too poor to have the medicines they need to live. It’s to say that no individual’s civil rights are to be violated. And it’s also to say that we need to really examine the historical inequities that have created much of the inequalities—both in terms of economics and social and racial justice—because they are intertwined. This idea of, like, race or class is a false choice. Even if you wanted to separate those two things, you can’t separate the two, they are intrinsically and inextricably tied. There is no other force, there is no other party, there is no other real ideology out there right now that is asserting the minimum elements necessary to lead a dignified American life.

My issue is not that she is "working class". AOC didn't even grow up "working class". Her father owned an architecture firm for fuck's sake!

It was not a very big one, however, and living in Yorktown Heights was a financial stretch for the family. She recalls her mother cleaning houses to supplement the family's income, and she recalls grumbling over her family having such cheap meals as rice and beans. Part of that was so she could have such things as piano lessons, and in "Knock Down The House", we have some home video of her paying "Silent Night" on a piano in a church.

There's really only one reason why a democrat would intentionally call themselves a socialist when they are really a social democrat. The only purpose is to hurt moderate democrats. It doesn't help republicans. In fact, it helps them. When you intentionally blur the difference, you push people in the middle towards the right. And this is why I don't support AOC or Bernie. Both are seeking to hurt the moderates. Sure they want to motivate the left. But wake me up when the left wins an election without a significant portion of the middle. Sorry, but the far left is squishy and difficult to motivate to vote. AOC and Bernie are helping Trump when they confuse the middle into thinking that democrats wanting to improve people's lives by increasing the safety net are socialists.

 

[lpetrich]

She also started a publishing house

What did that publishing house publish?

That was Brook Avenue Press. It was intended for publishing children's books that feature places like the Bronx in a positive light. She describes it in Brook Avenue Press - YouTube

But it never succeeded in publishing anything.

Part of the reason may be that AOC had no book-publishing experience. That would have been helpful in running a book-publishing company, and it would likely have gotten her connections in the business. By comparison, campaigning for Bernie Sanders in 2016 gave her a lot of experience in campaigning, and she had the help of fellow Bernie Sanders campaigners in getting started. So when she campaigned, she succeeded.

and did some work for non-profits and worked on campaigns for other politicians. We should all be such selfish slackers.

I know she worked for Bernie in 2016 and also gallivanted around South Dakota protesting oil. I guess that would be tough to pull off with a real job.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez named 2017 NHI Person of the Year - NHI Magazine

As a high school student, she participated in the NHI Lorenzo de Zavala Youth Legislative Session and became intensely involved in the organization’s work, going on to serve as an LDZ Secretary of State and a John F. Lopez Intern while in college. Despite the current demands of her campaign, she still makes time for NHI, most recently serving as Educational Director for the 2017 Northeast Collegiate World Series and participating in the panel on the future of Latino leadership that stood out as a highlight of Celebración 2017.

“She’s never stopped caring about our work and mission,” says NHI senior vice president Julio Cotto. “Somehow, she finds the time to share her wealth of talents with others. She’s helped us train, run programs, and be part of the thinking behind NHI’s success.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 2017 Northeast CWS - YouTube - she describes working with some high-school students.

Looking at AOC's pre-politics past, it's evident to me that she was a lot more than a bartender, and that explains why she has done as well as she has in her political career.

 

[Toni]

No she didn't. It took a LOT of work on her part, and she has the worn-out shoes to show for it.

She has paid MUCH more attention to her constituents than Joe Crowley had, if frequency of town-hall events is any guide.

She calls herself a socialist, but she is really a social democrat. In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Might Just Be the Future of the Democratic Party | Vogue (June 25, 2018): After discussing the Democratic Socialists of America, AOC continues

My issue is not that she is "working class". AOC didn't even grow up "working class". Her father owned an architecture firm for fuck's sake!

It was not a very big one, however, and living in Yorktown Heights was a financial stretch for the family. She recalls her mother cleaning houses to supplement the family's income, and she recalls grumbling over her family having such cheap meals as rice and beans. Part of that was so she could have such things as piano lessons, and in "Knock Down The House", we have some home video of her paying "Silent Night" on a piano in a church.

There's really only one reason why a democrat would intentionally call themselves a socialist when they are really a social democrat. The only purpose is to hurt moderate democrats. It doesn't help republicans. In fact, it helps them. When you intentionally blur the difference, you push people in the middle towards the right. And this is why I don't support AOC or Bernie. Both are seeking to hurt the moderates. Sure they want to motivate the left. But wake me up when the left wins an election without a significant portion of the middle. Sorry, but the far left is squishy and difficult to motivate to vote. AOC and Bernie are helping Trump when they confuse the middle into thinking that democrats wanting to improve people's lives by increasing the safety net are socialists.

Oh I don’t agree! I think that the socialist democrats are trying to pull the rest of the democrats further left. Or left. Those terrible leftist democrats are somewhat to the right of the Republican Party of the70’s—except for on social issues—for the most part.

Whether they notice or care that they are actually screwing over the Democratic Party because they lack the guts toform their own party is a different question. I don’t have a lot of respect for Bernie. I see promise in AOC and I like and admire her ability to get her message out there and to get people to pay attention. I think she’ll do much better than Bernie.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level, Lowest Of Last 15 U.S. Presidents, New Analysis Finds
(me: Trump is 4th grade, Presidents are typically 7th to 9th grades, AOC interviews: 9th grade)

I disagree here--the level at which a president speaks in public says little about the level they can speak at. A speech is going to be tailored to the audience. His Flatulence is speaking to the uneducated, you would expect a lower speaking level.

A better test of his level would be his tweets but I doubt tweets are long enough for such an analysis.

Trump Twitter Archive - a big collection of them.'

I don't know if anyone has tried to save AOC's tweets, but that could be challenging, since she uses lots of emojis in them. Her tweets often have a lot of formatting, like breaking up into paragraphs and making bulleted lists.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There's really only one reason why a democrat would intentionally call themselves a socialist when they are really a social democrat. The only purpose is to hurt moderate democrats. It doesn't help republicans. In fact, it helps them. When you intentionally blur the difference, you push people in the middle towards the right. And this is why I don't support AOC or Bernie. Both are seeking to hurt the moderates. Sure they want to motivate the left. But wake me up when the left wins an election without a significant portion of the middle. Sorry, but the far left is squishy and difficult to motivate to vote. AOC and Bernie are helping Trump when they confuse the middle into thinking that democrats wanting to improve people's lives by increasing the safety net are socialists.

Oh I don’t agree! I think that the socialist democrats are trying to pull the rest of the democrats further left. Or left. Those terrible leftist democrats are somewhat to the right of the Republican Party of the70’s—except for on social issues—for the most part.

Whether they notice or care that they are actually screwing over the Democratic Party because they lack the guts toform their own party is a different question. I don’t have a lot of respect for Bernie. I see promise in AOC and I like and admire her ability to get her message out there and to get people to pay attention. I think she’ll do much better than Bernie.

Toni: would you rather have a smaller tent that reflects all your values and yet lose the national election? You and I agree on a lot of issues. It's rare for me to disagree with you. But not all. I'm a little to your right on some fiscal and business issues. But is it really worth it to kick me out and lose the national election? Can our environment afford 4 years of Trump? Do you think that RBG can live another 4 years? I actually think that a group is stronger with diverse opinions. I have no problem with you wanting to move the democratic party to the left. I'd like to keep it from tipping over. Bottom line: Trump must be defeated in 2020. We don't have the luxury of throwing anyone out of the democratic party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A better test of his level would be his tweets but I doubt tweets are long enough for such an analysis.

Trump Twitter Archive - a big collection of them.'

I don't know if anyone has tried to save AOC's tweets, but that could be challenging, since she uses lots of emojis in them. Her tweets often have a lot of formatting, like breaking up into paragraphs and making bulleted lists.

But they're each short, I doubt a reading level analysis will give good data.

 

[Toni]

There's really only one reason why a democrat would intentionally call themselves a socialist when they are really a social democrat. The only purpose is to hurt moderate democrats. It doesn't help republicans. In fact, it helps them. When you intentionally blur the difference, you push people in the middle towards the right. And this is why I don't support AOC or Bernie. Both are seeking to hurt the moderates. Sure they want to motivate the left. But wake me up when the left wins an election without a significant portion of the middle. Sorry, but the far left is squishy and difficult to motivate to vote. AOC and Bernie are helping Trump when they confuse the middle into thinking that democrats wanting to improve people's lives by increasing the safety net are socialists.

Oh I don’t agree! I think that the socialist democrats are trying to pull the rest of the democrats further left. Or left. Those terrible leftist democrats are somewhat to the right of the Republican Party of the70’s—except for on social issues—for the most part.

Whether they notice or care that they are actually screwing over the Democratic Party because they lack the guts toform their own party is a different question. I don’t have a lot of respect for Bernie. I see promise in AOC and I like and admire her ability to get her message out there and to get people to pay attention. I think she’ll do much better than Bernie.

Toni: would you rather have a smaller tent that reflects all your values and yet lose the national election? You and I agree on a lot of issues. It's rare for me to disagree with you. But not all. I'm a little to your right on some fiscal and business issues. But is it really worth it to kick me out and lose the national election? Can our environment afford 4 years of Trump? Do you think that RBG can live another 4 years? I actually think that a group is stronger with diverse opinions. I have no problem with you wanting to move the democratic party to the left. I'd like to keep it from tipping over. Bottom line: Trump must be defeated in 2020. We don't have the luxury of throwing anyone out of the democratic party.

I think the tent needs to keep getting bigger--not smaller. I'm just fine with people being somewhat to the right of me fiscally/business wise. In fact, I think that is a good thing, actually. I think expanding the tent leftwards should not pull canvas off of the less leftwards or even right wards parts of the party. We all need to be each other's reality checks.

I don't think that including the left means excluding the middle. Like you, I think defeating Trump is the most important thing--with the caveat being that we cannot cannot cannot afford Gabbard even if more than a handful of us could stomach her. I cannot and I will not. I'll hold my nose and vote for Sanders, who I dislike and who I think will be extremely ineffective and probably will become incapacitated in his first term. I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden, despite his gaffs and the fact that he's also likely to be incapacitated in his first term. I'd rather vote for Warrenm who is really too old but much more spry than Joe or Bernie---and I'll happily vote for Booker--or Harris--or Klobuchar, for that matter, if any of these were possible and as contradictory as that may seem. I don't expect any candidate to be all things. But I do expect competence and an ability to bring people together by working with people. And I think that Sanders will be more effective in his current position. And frankly, I think the same of Joe (yes, I know he is 'retired.') as well and possibly Warren. Sanders is a good gadfly but only a gadfly and not a real leader. AOC has done far more to rally people around Bernie than he's managed to do himself in the past 40 years. I'd prefer to not have to vote for an elderly white man or a white male billionaire. But with the exception of Gabbard, I'll vote for whoever the Dems nominate.

If Gabbard gets the nod, I really think I will have to immigrate.

 

[lpetrich]

Oh I don’t agree! I think that the socialist democrats are trying to pull the rest of the democrats further left. Or left. Those terrible leftist democrats are somewhat to the right of the Republican Party of the70’s—except for on social issues—for the most part.

Whether they notice or care that they are actually screwing over the Democratic Party because they lack the guts toform their own party is a different question.

Form their own party? That would only be practical in a proportional-representation system. With first-past-the-post and single-member districts, the most practical route is to work within one of the existing parties. Brand New Congress tried all three options in 2018: 28 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent. For 2020, BNC has 33 Democrats and only Democrats.

In proportional representation, each party gets to send members to a legislature in proportion to how many votes it got. This allows for more than two parties, and many legislatures with PR have more than two parties in them. In fact, if the US had proportional representation, I suspect that both major parties would split in several parties.

I don’t have a lot of respect for Bernie. I see promise in AOC and I like and admire her ability to get her message out there and to get people to pay attention. I think she’ll do much better than Bernie.

Bernie Sanders has the right idea on a lot of issues, but he does not seem to have been very effective in Congress. AOC seems to have done better.