WAPO: "Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's media blitz"

[stevenleser]

This is not pretty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/?utm_term=.3ab0569c3507

.
.
.
"
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs."" - False

"
“ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night and that number has only been increasing since 2009.” - False

"“They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper middle class is probably more moderate but that upper middle class does not exist anymore in America.” - False

"“In a Koch brothers-funded study...it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.” - False

"
“The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax." - False

[SHRED]

1. Ouch

That's gonna leave a mark.

If you believe facts that is.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

2. This is blown WAY out of proportion

See Nate Silver, and Matt Yglesias responded agreeing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1027577021646426113

“I don't know, I watch these clips where Ocasio-Cortez is supposedly making huge gaffes and it seems like her policy knowledge is...probably about on par with or maybe a bit ahead of the average member of Congress.
11:27 AM · Aug 9, 2018
3.5K
Retweets
25K
Likes
Nate Silver
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
·
Aug 9
Replying to @NateSilver538
The level of policy expertise isn't great in Congress. And everyone says some dumb shit in long, extemporaneous interviews. Pick one of the random 435 members of the House out of a hat, have them do TV several times a week, and you'll see much worse.
“

[EndGOPPropaganda]

10. Other Dems don't get this kind of exposure

A big reason that Democratic members of Congress don’t do multiple interviews a week is because they don’t get asked by the media. She was asked. So she does them. Good for her.

Ocasio-Cortez can play a role to expand the Overton Window, and we should be happy about that, not tut tutting her.

What she’s saying resonates, and her big picture points are correct. I’m willing to give her some slack on policy details. She doesn’t need to make policy in her first year. And I am happy to hear her going to give interviews.

[stevenleser]

11. Sure they do. Dems in leadership absolutely do. And there is a reason they are in leadership.

They know what they are talking about and can handle themselves in an interview without spewing unbelievable tales.

If saying things that are not true is your idea of resonating, there are really big problems with how you see things.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

15. No. There is correct, and there is nitpicking.

First, even Dems in leadership don’t get these kind of press hits.

Second, she’s talking about important issues and is right on much of the big picture.
You know the old backhanded compliment: “Technically correct is the best kind of correct.” For too long Dems have worried about every crossed t and dotted I while Republicans jam their policies down our throats.
Let’s enjoy that she’s hitting the correct big picture points and support her for that.

I find not a small measure of jealousy in the way the media wants to tear her down.

[stevenleser]

17. Nitpicking? She is wrong, and easily demonstrated to be wrong. She is going to be in congress and is

accountable for saying things that are not true.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

21. She is right on big picture issues

Honestly, with all due respect, the attitude you espouse is the attitude of people who don’t know how to get things done.

Vision matters. Republicans understand this. Policy matters too, but both are important. We shouldn’t trash our vision people because they don’t currently have complete mastery of every policy detail.



For gods sake: the Republican Party wants to cage kids and kill people by reducing healthcare for billionaire tax cuts.

And you want to throw out an effective communicator who could lead the emotional fight against the GOP because she quoted the Nation and said hardworking people often have multiple jobs to make ends meet? Come on, man.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

23. Crucifixion not required for jaywalking

She should work on learning policy and get some media training.
But she’s an asset.

[stevenleser]

24. Elected officials do two things, vote on bills and public speaking on the issues. Neither is

jaywalking, they are the essential parts of their job.

[KPN]

59. Hear, hear.

Gotta wonder why a Dem would torpedo a rising spokesperson for the middle and working class. Sort of like the folks who correct other poster’s spelling.

[lagomorph777]

136. I think a Dem wouldn't torpedo a rising spokesperson.

There are plenty of folks out there who would, however.

[KPN]

137. I agree.

[ucrdem]

141. Spokesperson for whom?

I think we both know the answer and therein lies the problem.

[ucrdem]

147. Yes but whose? Bashing the ACA on CNN is not a core Democratic value

to take one example. I'll tactfully ignore the rest of your comment.

[lagomorph777]

148. I'm guessing you refer to her promotion of Medicare For All as bashing the ACA.

I think most Dems would agree the ACA is a compromise we had to accept due to concerted GOP obstruction. Of course it's not perfect and we should take it much farther when we regain power. What's anti-Dem about that?

[dae]

152. Correct, ACA was a beginning not an end all.

[Quixote1818]

64. Bingo! nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. Dead on!

[berni_mccoy]

113. Well argued, EndGOPPropaganda! Thank you.

You should think about replacing Mr. Lesser on Fox. Your adept handling of his bogus points reminded me of when Paul Begalia wiped the floor with Tucker Carlson on Cross Fire.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

138. Thank you

As usual with most arguments, there is a grain of truth in what Mr. Leser says. But overreaction to small gaffes is not necessary. I'm excited about what AOC stands for and how clearly she advocates for big ideas. That has a role in the Democratic party today.

Also, I didn't know that Steve Leser goes on Fox. Wow. Good for him for trying, but at this point if a liberal gets invited back to Fox they must realize that Fox considers them ineffectual enough that Fox can use them to discredit Dems. (I hope Phillipe Reines does NOT get invited back, because I think he's a good spokesperson and I don't want him to wear the scarlet letters.)

[leftstreet]

144. +1

We shouldn’t trash our vision people because they don’t currently have complete mastery of every policy detail.

[KPN]

58. OK. So you don't like her. We got it.

[TiberiusB]

63. This "fact checking" seems familiar...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/15/clintons-inaccurate-claim-that-immigrant-detention-facilities-have-a-legal-requirement-to-fill-beds/?utm_term=.3a28e87a7c1c

Good thing we all held her feet to the fire, right?

[EndGOPPropaganda]

172. Yup the fact checkers were wrong and Mercatus exposed

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016214773

[EffieBlack]

30. She should have the discretion to decline

Other members do get lots of media requests, but they know not to accept every time they're asked. They definitely don't do interviews about subjects they're not well versed in. She really needs to take it back a few notches, stop trying to be a national leader overnight, and focus on her district and her race.

[ehrnst]

101. + 1000

[kstewart33]

107. Bingo, Effie.

My thoughts exactly. Go back to her district, focus on her race, and start the long hard climb to becoming an influential member of Congress. Especially by studying up on the issues both in her platform and beyond.

She's risking becoming a '15 minutes of fame' public servant.

[womanofthehills]

159. So you think the little lady should stay home & know her place

OMG!

[EffieBlack]

161. Are you serious?

[womanofthehills]

158. I bet her district loves seeing her out there - proud of their own

She is bright and overall has done great in her interviews.

[George II]

42. Nate Silver? The guy who is routinely dissed on DU?

[KPN]

57. Yup. Even without Nate Silver/Matt Yglesias

it’s ridiculously out of proportion. I guess for some, one has to be crystal clear, dispassionate, and absent of rhetorical device to be above criticism — or an established D persona.

Let’s eat our own why don’t we.

[Claritie Pixie]

3. At least she talks a good game.

When are we going to stop this adoration of entertainers?

[stevenleser]

7. That would imply people believes the incorrect facts she is spewing. I don't think anyone does.

We all know whether a good number of folks we come in contact with work two jobs. That part is definitely not credible.

A Koch survey indicated that Medicare for All is a good thing? Who would believe THAT?

[EndGOPPropaganda]

12. What? That claim was widely covered.

Here’s the Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

It’s hardly a ridiculous claim for her to be echoing the Nation, even if the Nation has some Russia problems (with van den Huevel) today.

[stevenleser]

13. She is making policy for the country. She should know better than to trust a third rate publication.

That is minor league crap. She is in the bigs now. If she can't handle it, she should keep her yap shut until she learns her shit.

[Claritie Pixie]

16. Well said stevenleser.

We need people who are dedicated to the truth - especially now - and are serious about doing the work.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

18. This attitude is defeatist.

Dems like to eat their own.

AOC is an inspiring speaker who speaks to problems in America. I will seek to correct her errors. I will not throw the baby out with the bath water and reject her completely for lack of comprehensive policy knowledge that most Congresspeople also lack.

If you want to tear her down for this, that is your right.

I will support her, however. And I will support any Dem who stands up for working people, especially those who are young and hardworking and are learning.

[stevenleser]

19. Bullshit, we don't need people who don't know the facts to be speaking for us. THAT is defeatist

Pelosi needs to step in and tell her that she can expect the worst committee assignments unless she sits down and shuts up until she buys a clue on some of this stuff.

[blue cat]

32. Anyone who parades around with non-democrats

has Russian stank on them IMO. This statement should be allowed on the Democratic Underground. Just saying.

[George II]

43. Thin skin won't cut it in Washington, DC

[dsc]

29. actually they don't say it is a good thing

and she didn't say they did. She did say the study said it would save money and the study did say that. yes, they then qualified the statement but they did say it would save money. In short, she did give a technically accurate statement on that one.

[KPN]

60. What circles you in? Probably not the one(s)

she grew up in.

I know quite a few people who work more than one job out of necessity. Come to think of it, I have adult kids who have had to at times.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

139. +1 Two jobs to make ends meet is hardly unknown

[redgreenandblue]

149. "not knowing anyone who works two jobs" is almost a perfect illustration...

...of why some people are out of touch with the struggles of many Americans.

I know people who do. My mother was one of them.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

154. I know them too. Nm

[R B Garr]

151. Wow! These kinds of misrepresentations can really backfire. She grew up in privilege.

Her family moved to Westchester so she could go to better schools than in the Bronx. Her father owned an architecture firm. They maintained two homes in New York. She grew up fairly privileged. These facts came out immediately after her win, and she had to correct/update her web page. Your response to Steve Leser is trying to maintain that she grew up in underprivileged neighborhoods, and that's not true.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

155. This is a rightwing talking point

AOC debunked that argument, put forth by rightwing propaganda media like Newsmax.
Here’s the truth.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/7/2/17525180/ocasio-cortez-newsmax-bronx

Her mom scrubbed toilets growing up.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

163. What you said is a rightwing talking point

Her mom scrubbed toilets growing up, is what she said.

It's sad that you want to put her down for saying that, by saying something about sacrifices.

[R B Garr]

157. And LOL, your link is to her comment about Boston

University.

Welcome to DU.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

164. No. Her mom scrubbed toilets

"Ocasio-Cortez also confronted Cardillo’s assertions about her upbringing, confirming that the place he highlighted was, in fact, “nice.” “My mom scrubbed toilets so I could live here & I grew up seeing how the zip code one is born in determines much of their opportunity,” she wrote."


Also John Cardillo is a rightwing propagandist, while we're at it.

[George II]

169. It's not a "right wing talking point", nor was it debunked.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

173. For posterity: AOC was right, and fact checkers were wrong

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016214773

[stevenleser]

9. And I think that is saying it about as nice as you can.

100% right.

[betsuni]

5. When holding feet to the fire is on the other foot.

When a "regular" Democrat says something it's all: Words are the action of politics, this is a huge mistake, there is no room for error, she doesn't deserve another chance, bad optics, etc., a very large deal. But now I guess some eggs are allowed to be coddled, not boiled.

[Cha]

28. Yes, the double standard is glaring.

Thank You for reminding us how so many Democrats, including President Obama, had to have their feet to the FIRE ad nauseam.

But, now it's not ok for AOC. Wrong.

[sheshe2]

31. Yes.

Obama always had his feet held to the fire. I remember it all, Cha.

[Cha]

33. We had a Firewall

built around him in the BOG. Good times, she!

[sheshe2]

34. Yea, we did.

I loved the BOG and all the BOGers, Cha.

[Cha]

37. I knooow.. we were such a

hardy/hearty bunch!

[sheshe2]

39. YES! We were.

Some of my favorite DUers posted there.

Huge hug.

[leftofcool]

79. I wonder why her feet are not held to the fire?

[JustAnotherGen]

96. This times 1000

If Pelosi, Schumer, Booker, Menendez, etc etc don't get a free pass - then no one should.

I think she's a one or two term Federal Rep who will pivot to private industry when the time is right for her.

Our Revolution strikes me as very ANTI Career Politicians.

[stonecutter357]

8. K&R !

[ismnotwasm]

14. This is Exactly why

She shouldn’t have been made into a political rock star. I don’t even blame her, I’ve thought she was getting shit advice. Once she’s elected, she can do the work. Much more effective.

[Me.]

20. One Hopes

[stevenleser]

25. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate nt

[elleng]

27. All hope abandon, ye who enter,

thanks for nothing.

[question everything]

54. Once upon a time, two well known individuals were elected to the senate

but they chose to keep quiet, to sit in the back benches until they mastered the roles.

These were Hillary Clinton and Al Franken.

And then came Cruz who jumped and offended Feinstein committee and since then - everyone is a "rock star." Does not seems that she is seeking anyone's advice.

Sadly, with such a strong Democratic district she will never have a chance to learn.

[joshcryer]

61. Nah, populist lies get swept under the rug.

While this is annoying to those who seek truth and fairness, it's easily ignored and rebuffed by those seeking the idol.

[Cha]

26. ""In a Koch brothers-funded study...it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is..

actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.” - False

Where does she get her "facts" from?

With celebrity comes scrutiny. Ocasio-Cortez has come under fire for dismissing concerns about the anticipated costs of her proposals and offering too-glib answers.

As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios in roundups. But we will be watching Ocasio-Cortez closely as she continues her media blitz. A spokesman for her campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Thank You, Steven, for posting this.. Kessler goes into vivid detail.

[mr_lebowski]

84. That study did show savings overall for Medicare for All ...

Saying 'much' is a stretch, it was like 1-2 Trillion less out of 24 Trillion over 10 years or some such, but she's not entirely wrong here.

[dansolo]

98. The savings may also be a lie

If you look at the statements where the "savings" are mention, there is a comparison to how much insurance companies are paying. But that seems to be ignoring the considerable amount that consumers pay for healthcare currently. Also, the estimate given in the study is *extrememly* conservative, and says as much, so you can expect the costs to be higher.

[mr_lebowski]

121. Point is many on our side have pointed out that the language in teh study suggests

Overall cost of providing healthcare on a per-capita basis would go down with medicare for all vs current system, so she's not coming out of left field here.

[dansolo]

133. Did you actually read the study?

The lower cost was based on the language of Bernie's bill, which the study's author said was unrealistic. Expecting all medical service providers to drop all rates to the level that Medicare currently pays out is a pipe dream. And if that isn't done, then Bernie's plan is much more expensive. The study also points out that even doubling personal and corporate taxes wouldn't be enough to pay for it.

[dansolo]

145. That article is a fluff piece. It doesn't mention any of the issues brought up by the paper.

Again I ask, have you even read the study that they are referring to? Here is a couple of links to help you out.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I have an elegant solution.

She speaks for the people of NY 14. She doesn't speak for the entire nation or party.

[George II]

45. Yes. She bashed Tammy Duckworth for pointing out that she doesn't speak for the midwest.....

....and recent primary results have proven Tammy Duckworth to be correct.

Apology? I doubt it.

[joshcryer]

62. Tammy Duckworth knows damn well about constituants with her 2006 loss.

She's had loss against a terrible candidate who bashed her for being weak on the military (again, a decorated Vet who lost her legs, "weak" ). She went more hawkish in 2012, and is regularly bashing Trump for his anti-military rhetoric. Mary Landrieu has a similarly hawkish performance. Which apparently is more necessary for women in office.

She lost in 2006 because of the opposing candidates "cut and run" ads. She learned, you have to fight fire with fire, and actually represent your constituents.

[George II]

117. Exactly, and with the primary results in the midwest that we saw last week...

...it turns out that Tammy Duckworth's comment was correct.

[Equinox Moon]

36. Let me guess, you are not a supporter of AOC.

I thought we were not supposed to bash democrats on DU.

[George II]

47. Not being a supporter is far different from "bashing".

[vsrazdem]

56. It sounds like bashing to me.

[TheBlackAdder]

38. Republicans should be holding AOC's feet to the fire, not fellow Dems. This reeks of sour grapes.

[leftstreet]

46. +1

[George II]

48. Sour grapes? How so?

[George II]

52. That doesn't answer my questions. But you're great at attempting to read my mind.

[progressoid]

65. Yup. n/t

[Quixote1818]

67. We have a winner! nt

[sheshe2]

140. Yet Democrats held Obama's feet to the fire ad nauseum. nt

[GusBob]

40. Fact checking surprise: only 5% hold 2 jobs?

I hear that claim a lot from progressives as a throw away line. So much so that I assumed it to be true. The fact that I have always held 2 or more jobs, plus volunteer work, all by choice not necessity, led me to believe it true.

After further review, I reckon it to be untrue. Very few people I know have more than one job.

[George II]

50. The curious thing is that when someone holds two jobs that person is "employed"....

....if that person loses one of those two, he/she is STILL employed!

If I had two jobs and then added a third job, would that further reduce the unemployment level?

[theaocp]

110. I believe the idea is comparing unemployment with underemployment.

Remember shrub talking about the great thing in America is how many people can hold multiple jobs? I know I'm mangling his words, but I think that's the gist of the comment.

[George II]

111. No, she was talking about reasons why the unemployment rate has dropped.

[George II]

112. No, she was talking about reasons why the unemployment rate has dropped.

[Quixote1818]

66. It's not meant to be taken as fact. It's meant to make a point about income inequality.

Does she blow one statistic up to make her point? Yes but deep down there is a grain of truth to this statement. People may not work two jobs but it takes and husband and a wife to bring in what one income used to bring in back in the 1960's. (Adjusted for inflation)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/in-todays-economy-even-two-income-families-struggle-to-make-ends-meet

[George II]

44. What's concerning is she is using a Koch funded study to bolster her Democratic Socialist position.

[JCanete]

69. Its not concerning at all, and the numbers do show that it is a savings despite this Wapo nonsense.

The reason it is valuable is because we know The Kochs didn't intend on making Medicare for All look good, and yet, even by their numbers it does.

[ucrdem]

77. LOL, that's exactly the nonsense you just denied below.

Get your story straight at least.

[JCanete]

78. Where have I contradicted myself? Place them side by side. What did I deny?

[George II]

114. You really should read through the entire report.

[JCanete]

130. You don't actually have to accept a reports findings to throw back the inconveneint

numbers at the people who funded it. Are you saying those numbers are not what the report came up with?

[R B Garr]

53. That free funeral expense comment was frankly bizarre.

Among others.

Bookmarking this thread because I’m sure we’ll be revisiting these comments.

[AlexSFCA]

55. it may be the only way to get media coverage these days

unfortunately. While Alexandria is weak on facts just like every populist out there, her proposals are correct: we need universal healthcare regardless of cost. ICE is becoming dangerous and may very well turn into gestapo so it’s in our best interests to abolish it.
I no longer believe it can be reformed. ICE has been engaged in a large child trafficking and kidnapping operations orchestrated by the US government. You can’t clean it up, international human rights courts will be all over it. It is de facto criminal organization and we are funding it which makes us accomplices to the horrific crimes, it can’t stand.

[JCanete]

68. That whole passage about Medicare for All and the Koch study sounds like total bullshit.

It is literally obfuscating the truth by repeating the same bullshit about government expenditures, as if that isn't the number we are comparing to current healthcare costs. What the fuck gives? That's just embarrassing. "The Koch brother's study makes clear..." presumably just by saying it since their evidence is in the numbers and says the opposite, "that this is an unrealistic assumption." Wow. That really instills confidence in me when Wapo takes at face value a throwaway statement in the study meant to dismiss the findings. Brilliant!


As to her statement about the upper middle class. I thought that was odd when I heard her say it, and it just makes more sense for her to be talking about the middle class. I'm not that bothered by that one, but it is off by degrees and is quirky. Wapo's assessment of the middle class slightly dipping is tragic, given that wages have been stagnant for a loooong fucking time and cost of living, insurance, etc. have continued to increase. This kind of dismissive rhetoric makes this feel like a puff piece for the status quo.

[ucrdem]

70. Yes, it is total bullshit. That's the point. Using the Kochs to bash the ACA is disurbing.

And she's said it before so apparently it's part of the road show.

[JCanete]

71. She's pointing out that the Koch's hit job on Medicare for All

shows just how far from a kill-shot they were. It is frankly, smart to use it, and going forward with Medicare for All does not undermine the ACA. I just plain don't follow your reasoning.

[ucrdem]

73. No, that's not what she's pointing out. She's using the Kochs to sell medicare-for-all.

And yes, that is completely whacked.

[JCanete]

74. are you intentionally being obtuse? She literally says that their study isn't intended to

do medicare for all any favors. That is exactly what she's using it for. But of course she's using it to campaign for medicare for all, its a powerful statement to say that a couple rich people who want to kill it ended up accidently showing that it saves the American people money.

[ucrdem]

75. Read the OP. nt

[JCanete]

76. I did....what did I miss?

“In a Koch brothers-funded study — if any study’s going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers — it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”

[ucrdem]

80. this: "it shows that Medicare for all is actually much cheaper than the current system."

The "current system" is the ACA and she shouldn't be using a facking Koch study to bash it.

Capiche?

[JCanete]

81. what the fuck? Are you serious? YOu think the Koch brothers are trying to bash the ACA by promoting

Medicare for All? That's fucking wild. You know that nobody who votes for medicare for all is going to simply vote to repeal the ACA right? So who would the audience be for such an absurd proposition?

[ucrdem]

82. The Kochs are out to kill the ACA, yes. She should NOT be helping them. nt

[JCanete]

83. Again how on earth would promoting medicare for all help to kill the ACA. Lay out a scenario

in which that happens? There's no such thing as having to kill the ACA first in order to pave the way for Medicare for Alll...and the big Republican objections to the ACA were that it was going to be a slippery slope to something like Medicare for all or Single Payer. You think they want the public to be primed for that direction? I admit I'm not so good at math. Maybe you can explain your algorithm.

[ucrdem]

86. Hoo boy.

Okay I'll make it simple:

1) Many super-rich people hate paying taxes.

2) They will tell any lie they think will lower their taxes.

And that my friend is how the world works.

[betsuni]

93. Americans have been conditioned for decades to hate taxes, of course.

The slightest hint of any tax increase makes them freak out.

[JCanete]

94. yeah, then we shoudn't buy into shitty wapo stories that continue to support that mythology.

We should be tearing that nonsense down, and apparently that is working if you look at opinion polls on this subject.

[mr_lebowski]

85. She's not trying to kill the ACA by pointing out that the Koch study shows

Medicare for All to be an overall cheaper alternative to what we have now, which is the ENTIRE health insurance system, not just 'The ACA'. ACA is not the entirety of the system.

Kochs may want to kill ACA, but they also sure as shit don't want Medicare For All, and that was POINT of their study ... is to show how expensive (government $$$-wise) such a system would be. It ended up having to admit though that total costs for healthcare in the US would be less than what we now spend under the totality of the systems in place.

[ucrdem]

87. But the Kochs are, and she's helping them.

That's the problem.

[JCanete]

88. except that she's not. Except that this does not help them. That seems to be the part

you aren't following. Again, how does promoting Medicare for All help the Kochs and their agenda of getting rid of the ACA? Feel free to make something up. I'll just be entertained by rube goldbergean logic.

[ucrdem]

89. She's playing right into their hands.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have a lot to learn.

[JCanete]

90. but not teach me how this is doing that....okaaaay. but I could learn so much from you...right now.

[disillusioned73]

125. lmao...

this is what it has come down to.. spinning so much, that even when the Kochs get owned by their own study - it can not be used against them.. bizzare

[ucrdem]

72. She shouldn't be bashing the ACA.

And she sure as hell shouldn't be using "a Koch brothers-funded study" to do it.

Seriously, that's really, really wrong.

[Jamaal510]

91. AOC is lucky

to be running in a deep blue area and that this is projected to be a blue wave year. If this were somewhere more competitive, she would face trouble for this and some of the other things she has touched on, such as the inconsistencies regarding her background.

[OnDoutside]

92. 100% agree.

[SkyDancer]

95. She needs some polishing

And? A year ago she was a barista. Think about that.

No politician is perfect and every single one of them makes mistakes. So she made a few, who hasn't? Sure she could use some polishing and what not but couldn't we all?

She won on policy. Policy which helps people who are in need like the sick, elderly, the poor, and for many of us that's what matters. We want people who will help enrich our lives using policies to do so. Some people don't seem to understand this. Maybe those people could ask the person working the drive-thru window next time when they're ordering their Chai Latte's what's up.

[m-lekktor]

99. uh oh. Be well, Steve Leser, You had a good run here at the DU!!

You'll be back!!

[RandiFan1290]

100. He disrupted poorly

Guess he will have to go back to Fox if he wants to continue bashing Democrats.

[redgreenandblue]

104. I'll miss him.

Surely he will claim that he was alert stalked.

[betsuni]

109. But Bernie Sanders was on Fox.

OOPS.

[Autumn]

116. He will be unflagged by the end of the day

[redgreenandblue]

118. And then he'll be here complaining about the injustice of it all...

[Autumn]

119. And AOC. She was off on a couple of things. What Democrats hasn't?

She's young and she will only get better

[TiberiusB]

124. Indeed, what Democrat hasn't?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/15/clintons-inaccurate-claim-that-immigrant-detention-facilities-have-a-legal-requirement-to-fill-beds/?utm_term=.3a28e87a7c1c

Is this where somebody stands up and says that we need educated leaders representing us, not people "spewing" incorrect information? Maybe she should "keep her yap shut"? I bet she can afford to "buy a clue".

At least she doesn't have the nerve to pal around with "non-democrats" because we all know that anyone who isn't a Dem has "Russian stank on them".

To be clear, no one is attacking AOC. They are just offering helpful critiques.

Sure.

[disillusioned73]

127. What does..

"flagged for review" mean??

Is that jury driven, or administrative issued??

[Autumn]

128. Jury driven. A poster is Flagged for Review automatically after 5 hides.

The TOS explains it
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Forum rules
When participating on the Democratic Underground discussion forums, members are expected to follow our forum rules, listed below. If you break the rules, your post will be removed. Repeated rule violations, or a single flagrant rule violation, will result in your posting privileges being suspended while we review your account. If the Administrators come to believe that you do not share our core principles, you will not be permitted to participate unless you convince us otherwise.

[disillusioned73]

131. Thanks

[Hassin Bin Sober]

129. Jury driven after 5 hides.

It’s the new “banned” as no one ever gets reviewed.

[disillusioned73]

132. Thanks

[ucrdem]

142. 3 in this thread it appears.

I hope this can be rectified as Leser's contributions are consistently first-rate.

[redgreenandblue]

150. And I think I prefer it that way. I'll take "people's justice" over "king's justice" any day.

Warts and all.

And ever since the admins gave everyone amnesty, made the jury process anonymous and explicitly spelled out the rules literally no one has an excuse anymore.

It is not that hard to follow the rules but you have to actually want to. The OP apparently decided that the rule against depressing turnout in a general election does not apply to them. They were wrong.

[bigtree]

102. why are you campaigning against her?

...the only one who gains by an effort like this, since she's already gone through our primary, would be her republican opponent.

[pwb]

105. Here they are again?

Same people bashing this young lady whenever they can.

[berni_mccoy]

103. The article didn't bash her like you did

No where in the article did they say she was making false statements. Did she get some details wrong? Sure, but they weren’t 100% false.

You are bashing a Democrat.

[KG]

106. I lulz'd

[SixString]

108. BYE.

[disillusioned73]

115. Washington Post...

gee, color me shocked..

?ssl=1

[Hassin Bin Sober]

120. DU rec!! Lol.

[melman]

122. Oh my

What a terrible shame.

[theophilus]

123. There is some nit picking going on here and Corporate Dems seem reluctant to accept AOC.

There needs to be some fact checking on the fact checkers. Lots of folks do have second jobs and households seem unable to get by on one income. 35 hours a week might not even qualify for benefits. Teachers work way more than 35 hours a week and to say the average worker works less than 40 hours a week strikes me as troubling at best. AOC is drawing attention to our Robust Economy that does not strike me as robust at all. IMO.

[Historic NY]

126. Just Remember its hers to lose.....

winning a primary is nothing until you win the election. Traveling to Hawaii wasn't a good choice.

[Gothmog]

135. Fact checking is a good thing and here the facts do not back AOC's claims

[ucrdem]

143. She's basically using RW talking points to bash the ACA.

From the WaPo link in the the OP:

“The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax.

And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange."

Yes, these errors need to be called out here, because they are dangerous lies and she shouldn't be helping to spread them.

[Nevernose]

160. Golly! Why ever would the world's richest man

Be threatened by a self-described Socialist?

I like the WaPo. I still read the WaPo. But it’s the same paper than ran 16 anti Bernie pieces in 16 hours, according to FAIR. They are militantly centrist, if such a thing is possible.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

162. Kick. Because I love this thread.

[redgreenandblue]

165. ...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

167. ...

[redgreenandblue]

168. That is so mean.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

171. I'm a meanie.

[Recursion]

166. That's the entire point. Her job is to move the Overton window

And the sad fact is that an actually sensible policy like "Medicaid for most" doesn't do that.

She even said so early on: she's in a D+16 district. Look at the kind of crazy right wing shit the bomb-throwers in R+16 districts throw. She does that for us.

It doesn't matter that her actual claims are false any more than it does that the Freedom Caucus' claims are: she's putting the idea of, say, universal government-funded health care out in the media and getting normal people to think of that as one of the options.