Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[lpetrich]

AOC was one of least effective members of Congress: study
That's according to
The ‘Do-Something’ Members of 116th Congress: Legislative effectiveness study from Vanderbilt, UVA identifies member success in advancing bills | Vanderbilt News | Vanderbilt University
and
Legislative Effectiveness and the Waning Powers of Committee Chairs | The Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy | Vanderbilt University
and
Find Legislators – Center for Effective Lawmaking

AOC is far down, but her squadmates are not much better. But that site rates all of AOC's 21 bills as "substantive", and not commemorative. No bills to name a post office after someone.

For a check on these results, I consulted
Report Cards for 2020 - GovTrack.us

Bills introduced: AOC 23, Ayanna Pressley 30, Rashida Tlaib 27, Ilhan Omar 42, Katie Porter 35, Pramila Jayapal 31, Ro Khanna 35

Bills out of committee: AOC: 0, AP: 3, RT: 4, IO 1, KP 3, PJ 3, RK 8

Laws enacted: AOC: 0, AP: 0, RT: 1, IO: 1, KP: 0, PJ: 0, RK: 5

 

[untermensche]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

Both parties are bought and paid for by corporate polluters.

Capitalism pollutes and destroys everything it touches.

Starting with human minds.

Talking to a believer in capitalism is like talking to a religious nut.

They think they understand the world but only know the stories they have been told to by others, that are lies.

Like Socialism has ever failed.

It is all that keeps capitalism bearable to most and allows it to continue destroying everything in sight.

Capitalism is children chained to work stations for 14 hours a day.

That is capitalism.

Anything better is what socialists have forced capitalists to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

She's unsuccessful because she keeps going after pie in the sky.

 

[untermensche]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

She's unsuccessful because she keeps going after pie in the sky.

You mean unlike the rest of Congress she actually spells out goals?

"Pie in the sky" is nothing objective.

It is just prejudice.

The idea that capitalism takes care of all within a society is pie in the sky.

That's like saying the jungle takes care of all lives within it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

She's unsuccessful because she keeps going after pie in the sky.

You mean unlike the rest of Congress she actually spells out goals?

"Pie in the sky" is nothing objective.

It is just prejudice.

The idea that capitalism takes care of all within a society is pie in the sky.

That's like saying the jungle takes care of all lives within it.

No one claims that capitalism takes care of all without a very deep and strong safety net. And many voters within capitalist systems aren't willing to pay the high taxes necessary for this. But of course, capitalism "takes care of" far more people that the socialism system. Yes, there are many that fall in the cracks in a capitalist system; all fall in the cracks in a socialist system except those at the very top.

 

[Swammerdami]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

She's unsuccessful because she keeps going after pie in the sky.

AOC is not unsuccessful. The fact that her bills have net been enacted (yet!) is just a result of her pushing hard on the Overton window.

AOC is a widely-admired leader of progressive politicians. Joe Biden has promoted policies more progressive than he was expected to: Surely this is due in part to the growing influence of AOC and other progressives.

("because both parties oppose her ideas" ?? What in tarnation is this supposed to mean? If AOC spoke in support of apple pie, baseball and Mother's Day, a majority of Gopsters would come out against them.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

AOC is unsuccessful because both parties oppose her ideas.

She's unsuccessful because she keeps going after pie in the sky.

You mean unlike the rest of Congress she actually spells out goals?

"Pie in the sky" is nothing objective.

It is just prejudice.

The idea that capitalism takes care of all within a society is pie in the sky.

That's like saying the jungle takes care of all lives within it.

"Pie in the sky" is objectives which are impossible. For example, her ideas for zero carbon by 2030. It simply can't be done in that timeframe. It's not a matter of political will, it's a matter of technological capability.

 

[untermensche]

"Pie in the sky" is objectives which are impossible. For example, her ideas for zero carbon by 2030. It simply can't be done in that timeframe. It's not a matter of political will, it's a matter of technological capability.

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

 

[Derec]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

 

[none]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

ledger? ever heard of that? pen strokes. but it ain't hysteria.

 

[untermensche]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

 

[Swammerdami]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

"Less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated" is an understatement. As late as 1939, key physicists like Bohr and Oppenheimer still did not believe nuclear fission was possible. The first "pile" to go critical was on December 2, 1942 at 3:48 pm. Think of that! Barely 2½ years before Trinity. And the first pile to produce power (and plutonium) in any quantity didn't go critical until September 27, 1944!! That was the first time the physicists became aware of "Xenon poisoning," a phenomenon in any uranium reactor which runs hot for more than a few minutes.

It shows great ignorance to minimize the challenges of the Manhattan Project — an effort which has been compared with the building of the Panama Canal and of the Great Pyramids — and of the remarkable "can-do" spirit for which America was once known.

That can-do spirit seems forgotten by a new generation. "She wants to do it in ten years. I think it will take eleven years. So let's just give up now, before we even begin." Is that a valid paraphrasing of the poster untermensche quotes?

And if it does take eleven years instead of ten? That will be the fault of Mitch McConnell and the other GOP criminals and traitors who "want Biden to fail."

Those of us who remember the Apollo Moon Landings, or have read about the Manhattan Project, lament to see how right-wing lies and hypocrisy seek to destroy what's left of a once-great country and its healthy can-do spirit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Pie in the sky" is objectives which are impossible. For example, her ideas for zero carbon by 2030. It simply can't be done in that timeframe. It's not a matter of political will, it's a matter of technological capability.

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

We didn't have a viable atomic bomb program in WWII. Japan surrendered to a gigantic bluff.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki went boom, but that was it--we could only produce a trickle of bombs. Had Japan realized that the situation would have played out very differently.

The problem with her zero carbon approach is the scale. We simply can't accomplish that even with an all-hands-on-deck approach. The closest we could come to it is nuclear but she's ruled that one out.

At the start of the Manhattan project we already knew about fission and the possibility of a chain reaction. It was a question of engineering. That's vastly ahead of where we stand in her pie in the sky--we don't even have reasonable starting points for the amount of storage it would take to run society entirely on renewables. That is the absolute showstopper with her garbage. I do not know if industry could produce enough generation capacity in that timeframe but it is completely irrelevant because the storage is definitely impossible unless there's some Nobel-level breakthrough out of left field that changes the whole picture. (And "a miracle happens" is not a valid planning step.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

<Chucks untermensche off a cliff>
There's no way of knowing if you can walk across air if without actually trying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated" is an understatement. As late as 1939, key physicists like Bohr and Oppenheimer still did not believe nuclear fission was possible. The first "pile" to go critical was on December 2, 1942 at 3:48 pm. Think of that! Barely 2½ years before Trinity. And the first pile to produce power (and plutonium) in any quantity didn't go critical until September 27, 1944!! That was the first time the physicists became aware of "Xenon poisoning," a phenomenon in any uranium reactor which runs hot for more than a few minutes.

7 years from demonstrating the principles worked to being able to produce a trickle of equipment. That's a vastly different thing than going from not even having a starting point to full deployment in 10 years.

It shows great ignorance to minimize the challenges of the Manhattan Project — an effort which has been compared with the building of the Panama Canal and of the Great Pyramids — and of the remarkable "can-do" spirit for which America was once known.

The Manhattan Project is child's play compared to what she's asking for.

That can-do spirit seems forgotten by a new generation. "She wants to do it in ten years. I think it will take eleven years. So let's just give up now, before we even begin." Is that a valid paraphrasing of the poster untermensche quotes?

This isn't about a can-do spirit.

And if it does take eleven years instead of ten? That will be the fault of Mitch McConnell and the other GOP criminals and traitors who "want Biden to fail."

It's not going to happen in 11, either. When you tell workers to do the obviously impossible do you expect them to try hard? I certainly wouldn't.

Those of us who remember the Apollo Moon Landings, or have read about the Manhattan Project, lament to see how right-wing lies and hypocrisy seek to destroy what's left of a once-great country and its healthy can-do spirit.

It isn't a matter of right-wing lies.

Apollo was a major effort. She's doing the equivalent of challenging the nation to send a manned mission to Venus instead of to the Moon.

 

[untermensche]

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

<Chucks untermensche off a cliff>
There's no way of knowing if you can walk across air if without actually trying.

Your assurances it is impossible are subjective opinions.

They are meaningless.

 

[Trausti]

Atomic bombs were impossible until serious efforts were made to produce them.

Making a few bombs is a very different challenge than fundamentally restructuring an entire >$20 trillion economy.
The Manhattan Project was indeed a marvel because they developed nuclear technology almost from the ground up less than a decade after nuclear fission was first demonstrated.
But it is a very different kind of challenge. And it just can't be done within a decade.

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

Wouldn't that have already happened? We just gonna forget the last few decades?

 

[untermensche]

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

Wouldn't that have already happened? We just gonna forget the last few decades?

You mean when many Republicans claimed there was no problem?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no way to know what is possible without actually trying.

Making the world green is a job producer.

<Chucks untermensche off a cliff>
There's no way of knowing if you can walk across air if without actually trying.

Your assurances it is impossible are subjective opinions.

They are meaningless.

I pay attention to the people who know what they're talking about. Technologies simply aren't deployed that fast.

 

[Derec]

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki went boom, but that was it--we could only produce a trickle of bombs. Had Japan realized that the situation would have played out very differently.

I wonder. Conventional bombing of Tokyo killed almost as many people during the two day Operation Meetinghouse. Japan was on its last legs even without the nukes. And what could Japan hope for? Certainly not a victory - at most being able to hold on long enough for a couple more bombs to be produced.

The problem with her zero carbon approach is the scale. We simply can't accomplish that even with an all-hands-on-deck approach. The closest we could come to it is nuclear but she's ruled that one out.

Exactly. The scale is massive and the systems in question are designed to operate for decades. Even consumer equipment like furnaces and cars are designed to last more than a decade and industrial stuff like combined cycle gas turbine plants last much longer.

At the start of the Manhattan project we already knew about fission and the possibility of a chain reaction. It was a question of engineering. That's vastly ahead of where we stand in her pie in the sky--we don't even have reasonable starting points for the amount of storage it would take to run society entirely on renewables. That is the absolute showstopper with her garbage. I do not know if industry could produce enough generation capacity in that timeframe but it is completely irrelevant because the storage is definitely impossible unless there's some Nobel-level breakthrough out of left field that changes the whole picture. (And "a miracle happens" is not a valid planning step.)

I think you are a bit too pessimistic here. There are certainly possibilities for grid-scale storage. Na+ and flow batteries are some possibilities. The question is one of engineering - improving the technologies, especially with regard to cost, rather than coming up with fundamental Nobel-worthy breakthroughs. And of course, the really big challenge is deployment throughout the energy infrastructure.
The challenge of grid-scale batteries is very different than that of batteries for electric cars. EV batteries need to be compact and relatively light-weight. Grid storage applications are not space and weight sensitive, but need to be cost-effective, efficient and able to be charged and discharged frequently. But those are engineering challenges.