Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Unleashes on Nancy Pelosi

[left-of-center2012]

In an interview with the New York Times, Speaker Nancy Pelosi landed a solid burn on freshmen Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley when she suggested that their significance is overblown and based mostly on social media following.

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi was quoted by Maureen Dowd. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Well Ocasio-Cortez took it pretty personally, it seems, and a new Twitter was born overnight.

Her first tweet was loaded with snark as she implied that Pelosi is out of touch with the public. “That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment,” she wrote. She also said that the power of that sentiment is how “we actually” achieve change. That “actually” is another obvious dig. She’s saying that the old, establishment Democrats don’t know what the Democrat base wants, and haven’t done anything worthwhile anyway.

Pelosi brought the Senate version of the border funding bill ... up for a vote after Senate Democrats helped pass the measure in the upper chamber, and House Democrats joined many Republicans in passing it as well

After about a half hour, AOC went back to Twitter and piled on her previous post, retweeting a discussion about Pelosi’s comments, where it was suggested that Pelosi is betting Trump will “do the right thing” with border funds.

“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody,” she said, obliquely laying the deaths of children at Pelosi’s doorstep. She then more explicitly said that “people’s lives are getting bargained” by Democrats like Pelosi in their attempts to work with Republicans.

Overall, just a brutal airing of laundry and, in just a few tweets, a very, very hostile attack by Ocasio-Cortez on basically everything Democrats have done and are doing ...

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-unleashes-on-nancy-pelosi-peoples-lives-are-getting-bargained-and-for-what/

[DURHAM D]

1. I thought she had grown into her office.

Guess not.

[Farmer-Rick]

33. Much to do about nothing

How many times have RepubliCONS laid into Traitor Trump, claiming all sorts of horrible things he's done (mostly true). Then the next thing you know, the RepubliCON is licking Traitor Trumps boots. It doesn't hurt the RepubliCON and Trump just keeps on corrupting our government with his stupidity.

So, this sounds to me like some folks want to get Democrats infighting over the slightest thing.

[aidbo]

94. you're right,

After 32 years in Congress you would think she would have grown into her office by now.

[GeorgeGist]

123. They rarely do,

[NurseJackie]

159. Many others are observing the same thing...

Many others are observing the same thing and are disappointed too. However, being disappointed should not be mistaken for being surprised---which many are not.

[ehrnst]

167. Indeed. (nt)

[mcar]

2. AOC comes off quite childish here

[dem4decades]

3. I'm afraid AOC is overplaying her hand and the Republicans love it.

[Bradical79]

4. AOC is right -nt

[brush]

37. People seem to be forgetting Mueller is testifying on the 17th.

We wanted this to happen months ago but Barr, trump, and a reluctant Mueller have drug this out as long as they could.

The testimony will be televised and the face that trump committed obstruction of justice several times and worked with Russians will come out. It will also come out that the report did not exonerate trump.

AOC and the rest of us need to be ready to take advantage of Mueller's answers and tweet the shit out of them. That would be a good way to use "that public whatever".

I'm sure Pelosi is not forgetting the upcoming testimony, and
nobody said getting rid of trump was going to be easy.

[myohmy2]

89. agreed...

...AOC is right...

" “people’s lives are getting bargained” by Democrats like Pelosi..."

...where is she wrong?

...

[bottomofthehill]

130. Because if there is no bargain there is no Legislation

Neither the Speaker nor the House has the ability to act unilaterally. If AOC were Speaker today, her options would be to pass the bill of her liking that would never get through the Senate and have even less of a chance of overriding a Veto or pass something that may have some funds get to those in true need.

[myohmy2]

145. Nancy's...

...been around a long time and should know how to do creative legislating...she's got the country's wallet; tie shit together the pukes can't refuse...

" Pelosi brought the Senate version of the border funding bill — which did not contain the safeguards that were written into the House version... "

" Overall, just a brutal airing of laundry and, in just a few tweets, a very, very hostile attack on basically everything Democrats have done and are doing which is, as the newcomers have repeatedly demonstrated, suggested, implied, and stated, just plain not good enough for their more left-wing part of the party. "

"...just plain not good enough…"

...I don't know what makes Pelosi think she's on thick ice...when the unimpeached trump does something extremely dangerous and stupid costing lives and putting the country at grave risk (as he surely will), or if trump should get re-elected to a second term, what makes Pelosi think she's going to remain Speaker?

...IMO, AOC would make a much better Speaker even while learning on the job...AOC and friends are fighters, our hope and future...there will be accountability for tired establishment Dems who compromise away our future...

...no more excuses...

[shanny]

153. +1

[ehrnst]

182. What "excuses" are you referring to? (tn)

[ehrnst]

289. Crickets....

No surprise.

[myohmy2]

293. nah...

...I frighten easily...

...I didn't want to go there...

...

[ehrnst]

294. Because of course you did.

Maybe going there in the first place wasn't such a good idea, you think?

[ehrnst]

183. Yep, AOC would have had the same options. Perhaps fewer because Nancy is far more experienced. (nt)

[Autumn]

5. Good for her. nt

[George II]

36. Bad for her. Even if she has well-founded disagreements with Pelosi (which she doesn't)....

...you don't air it in the press.

This is really going to further hurt her career in Congress.

[Autumn]

40. I doubt it George. You should ask her if her office is open yet. nt

[George II]

41. Deflection again, I see. Why don't YOU ask her?

[Autumn]

52. Deflection? I said I doubted it in response to your it "will hurt her career in Congress"

nonsense. I responded appropriately. Just because you don't like my answer does not make it a deflection. I'm not the one who was haranguing about her office George, you were deeply concerned about that last time she pushed back and got on the shit list.

[George II]

55. So why mention the off-topic idea of her office, is that relevant to her lashing out against Pelosi?

[Autumn]

57. So why accuse me of deflection when I answered your comment?

[George II]

60. No you didn't. Why not start a new thread about her District office and we can discuss it there?

[Autumn]

74. Because I don't have to start a thread on it , and yes I did.

I responded to the OP

Star Member Autumn (34,847 posts)

5. Good for her. nt

You responded to me.

Star Member George II (39,894 posts)


36. Bad for her. Even if she has well-founded disagreements with Pelosi (which she doesn't)....

...you don't air it in the press.

This is really going to further hurt her career in Congress.

I answered you with

Star Member Autumn (34,847 posts)

40.

I doubt it George.

You should ask her if her office is open yet. nt

I doubt it means I don't think it will hurt her career in Congress. I answered you. Last time we spoke on AOC you were deeply concerned about her office not being open. Just a friendly suggestion in case you were still worried about that issue, a little activism goes a long way.

[George II]

78. You RESPONDED to me with that. An "answer" is in response to a question....

Now, why did you inject the status of her office in this discussion? (That's a question)

You have a great evening, I will.

[Autumn]

88. Perhaps you missed this part from my post

I doubt it means I don't think it will hurt her career in Congress. I answered you. Last time we spoke on AOC you were deeply concerned about her office not being open. Just a friendly suggestion in case you were still worried about that issue, a little activism goes a long way.]

[George II]

90. No I didn't. That was days ago in a totally different discussion, irrelevant to the discussion here.

[Autumn]

92. I never said it was in this discussion George. I said the last time YOU and I spoke about AOC

her office not being open was a big concern to you. Odd how you can go off topic and bring in things that are not relevant to the conversation at hand but complain when others do.

Star Member George II (39,902 posts)

34. So, what do you think about her vote against reopening the government earlier this year....

....because she was against funding for ICE, not realizing that the bill she voted against didn't even contain any funding for ICE? "Stand up for what is right"? That's fine, as long as it truly is RIGHT.

[sheshe2]

79. I see no where in George's posts to you in... THIS thread

I see no where in George's post to you in... THIS thread where he mentioned AOC's office being opened. Perhaps in another thread, yet frankly I see that OT and a deflection to the topic of the OP.

[Thekaspervote]

47. Agree..and unfortunately I think she will continue to behave badly

[CentralMass]

6. I think AOC is right. Nothing will change if we maintain the status quo.

[question everything]

7. No. Most of the new members are moderate

AOC's district is strong liberal, as is Omar's. Yes, we can choose "purity" over common sense and lose the presidency and, perhaps, the House.

[CentralMass]

11. I dont choose purity, i choose people who stand up for what is right.

I have three daughters that are recently out of college with a mountain of debt facing a tough future. I will support bright articulate people like AOC with a vision to change things any chance that I can.

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Sounds like purity to me.

The only way for a democracy to work is to be willing to accept compromise at times.

[CentralMass]

20. It is choice.

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Yes it is a choice

to not compromise to achieve realistic goals but rather to stay pure and fail to achieve anything.

[CentralMass]

125. An attitude of compromise has not left the middle and poor classes or the country in a healthy state

We need a sea change and I welcome those who aren't afraid to push for it.

[Trumpocalypse]

127. Actually it has over the years

It’s purity that has achieved nothing.

[ehrnst]

185. +1000.

[Thekaspervote]

50. It does. She never wants to compromise, not a good team player, which doesn't get anything done

[LiberalLovinLug]

85. The term "purity" can be tossed around to mean different things.

Those who prefer the status quo use the term to describe Democrats who are too ambitious about change. In regards to social advancements like a national government facilitated universal medicare program, as an example. That to be a pure Democrat, we must not question leaderships mantra of "change is hard, and takes a long long time" even "its never gong to happen" as was quoted by the third way front runner last primaries on the topic of single payer. This status quo have bought the propaganda that we are a "conservative country". They are deathly afraid of Fox News as well as the more "moderate" commentators on other network news shows. That and/or its convenient to use that excuse to keep the donations flowing in.

This purity test fails anyone who criticizes decisions by the top Democratic party leaders. AOC has already probably crossed that line with some. Senator Sanders is unique in that he can fail a second kind of purity test. He's not a pure Democrat party member either. Its not enough that he votes with them, is part of and even leads committees, and sponsors bills backed by other Democrats. He's still a Sneech that doesn't wear a star on his belly.

There are Party-above-all purists, who disdain these new upshots like AOC as well as old burrs in the saddle like Sanders.

And there are social policy purists on the left, who put issues ahead of subservience to party hierarchy. A heirachy built on the old school traditions outside of this new fangled social media platform that those darn kids are using these days.

[Trumpocalypse]

121. The term "Status Quo" can be tossed around too

Mainly by the purity left for any compromise to achieve realistic goals.

[LiberalLovinLug]

246. "Status Quo" is just that. It is not "tossed around" by either side.

I have yet to hear an old guard of the party call AOC "status quo".

Those you call the "purity left" who simply want things that other countries regard as essential services to their own citizens are the ones that realize that the GOP is not interested in compromise. Its time to leap frog the status quo and stop looking so reserved and afraid.

[Trumpocalypse]

250. Yes it is tossed around

And you are right about the GOP not willing to compromise. Unfortunately the purity left has been making the same mistake for over 50 years.

[LiberalLovinLug]

253. So its a "mistake" to push for what other democracies enjoy?

And the "purity left" as you call them, have not had the chance in that 50 years. Its the perpetual argument by the status quo that NOW is not the time. That we must appease the GOP first, then we can begin to deliver those long overdue benifets to the American people. Only one problem with that approach, the GOP are never appeased. So it ends up that all that is accomplished is that bills are "compromised" from Republican to Republican-lite. Baby steps is the war cry! Meanwhile the GOP is making leaps ....towards fascism. But hey, if Nancy can get a bi-partisan infrastructure bill passed that's what's important right now.

[Trumpocalypse]

255. The purity left lost us elections

in 1968, 2000 and 2016 because they refuse to be reasonable and compromise.

[LiberalLovinLug]

258. Because its they that have to do the compromising every time right?

And this double standard has been going on for the last 50 years as you pointed out. We must not upset Fox n Friends.
And what has that got us?....universal medicare, maternity leave, gun control......oh wait.

[Trumpocalypse]

259. The problem with the all or nothing approach

is that the result is usually nothing. Ted Kennedy use to say half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

[LiberalLovinLug]

274. that may be true. but it's more like crumbs.

and what crumbs we win, the ACA without a public option, gets chipped away even further to nothing anyways. It is not working anymore.The new strategy should be to ask for the whole loaf. And then stand behind it 100%. (Then we may get 80% as opposed to 2%) No more wishy washy. THAT is what the public despises. Take a bold stand and fight for it. Describe the loaf, the warmth, the fresh baked aroma, the ability of it to feed more than if you just gave them a slice to share. All we need is a great communicator. Obama COULD have been that. He had such great oratory skills, but he only brought them out for special occasions and the SOTU address.

The nation was ready for a radical departure from the status quo....Republican or Democratic in 2016. That's why I maintain that Sanders would have beaten Trump. New ideas, new ways, and beating back the swamp, were more important than what party won, at least to a lot of independents. As well as Sanders supporters and others who might vote Democratic, like the youth, who were not excited about yet another long time establishment Democrat winning. First female or not. The Biden approach is way long done. The GOP have moved on a decade ago to the all or nothing approach. Trying to still unilaterally go about business as was done in the 70's expecting the GOP to suddenly go back to that as well is foolish.

Now that Trump has kind of spoiled that moment of opportunity, ie..I don't think Sanders can do it this time, and we have many other great choices now, it will be more difficult but I still think....if presented right, that is the key.....the public the moderate to left public, is still looking for a maverick, with fresh ideas, someone not even afraid of upsetting their respective leadership.

[Trumpocalypse]

279. Crumbs is a purity response

The old nothing is ever good enough or goes far enough.

[ehrnst]

290. Yes, based on the myth that there was a whole loaf being offered, but someone chose 'crumbs' instead

because... (insert bogeyman here).

Because a politician running against an incumbent or more popular candidate told them THAT is why we don't have lots of loaves of bread, and it's just SO SIMPLE to fix!! Choose the WHOLE BIG LOAF OF BREAD. not what's actually available! If you WANT it badly enough, and if you all clap, then you get what YOU DESERVE right NOW! Just vote for me!

Works like a charm. Then when if the politician gets elected, they can just blame any number of other factors/actors that were there all along for "trying to stop me from helping you!" THEY want me to FAIL because I THREATEN the STATUS QUO, so they've convinced everyone else - who doesn't support me - that it's not possible like I promised!!!

THEY hate me, and I welcome that hatred because it proves that I'M one of YOU not THEM! They are the reason I can't deliver on my promises!! Over there!!!

[ehrnst]

292. What is the "status quo....Republican or Democratic" that you say people hate?

Perhaps you'll be the first to be able to explain it more specific terms other than "well, you know - centrist/establishment/business as usual stuff"

Surprise me.

And what was this "whole loaf" that was being offered but was refused for "crumbs?" What reason does someoene who is actually offered a whole loaf actually turn it down for "crumbs" instead? Specifically.

Was this something you heard from a politician running for office?

[question everything]

126. I will describe "purity" from what I observed when I lived in California in the 90s

The Republicans did not call if purity; rather "stand on principles." And they lost every single state wide office.

The mayor of LA - don't remember his name - was a moderate Republican, was pro-choice. And he ran for governor but lost the primaries because, well, he was not "pure" enough. And, yes, they lost the governorship.

In order to push for the "lofty" ideas that AOC and her pals want, one has to be in power, first. And right now, with her we are scaring many voters, including the ones that flipped the House.

[Ace Rothstein]

164. The compromise is apparently to always get sucked to the right.

[ehrnst]

180. We certainly didn't win anything getting "sucked to the left" back when Ted Kennedy

had an opportunity to get a universal health plan that was to the left of the ACA back in 1972.... and walked away from the table because it wasn't single payer.

It was one of the biggest regrets of his career.

[Trumpocalypse]

206. Well said nt

[Trumpocalypse]

204. When you are on the left

the compromise is to the right. That's the very definition of compromise.

[ehrnst]

243. I know right? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

266. That is what happens when you only have one branch of government.

[Ace Rothstein]

267. No, it has been happening for 30+ years.

The Republicans win, they govern from the right. The Republicans lose, they go even further right.

[Demsrule86]

280. We have not had congress for years in a meaningful way... clinton lost the house,

OBAMA LOST THE HOUSE...PERHAPS IF WE DIDNT ABANDON Democratic presidents, we would do better . Also looking at the senate and state government, it seems they agree with us less than Republicans...this requires us running candidates who can win in red and purple states and changing hearts and minds...it is unfaur to blame the party when really, we have let them down time after time, until we excercise party loyalty, it will continue.

[George II]

34. So, what do you think about her vote against reopening the government earlier this year....

....because she was against funding for ICE, not realizing that the bill she voted against didn't even contain any funding for ICE? "Stand up for what is right"? That's fine, as long as it truly is RIGHT.

[question everything]

124. And how have they accumulated so much debt?

Did they considered Junior College? Did they sit with a financial consultants to determine whether the college of their choice was the only one - given the cost?

Were they certain of their major, or have they changed it, and schools, several times?

If there is a college in your town that would have met their aspirations did they live at home?

For all the students with mountains of debt, there are many who do not. Who lowered their expectations choosing different alternatives.

And there are millions voters who, having managed not to accumulate debt, or who chose not to go to college resent this "bail out."

[CentralMass]

152. First of all its non of your damn business and secondly there are

more than 44 million student loan borrowers who collectively owe $1.5 trillion in student loan debt in the U.S. alone.
With 153 million registered voters that is 29% of voters with student debt.
The lastest number quoted in the article is $1.56 trillion. That works out to be $35,454 average per borrower. Obviousely some owe more and some owe less.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/02/25/student-loan-debt-statistics-2019/

[eilen]

165. My son, for one

He went to community college which we (he and us-parents) saved money for and paid without loans. He then enlisted and served in the US Navy and served his contract. Discharged, he is using the GI Bill and other savings. We are putting him up (room and board) and he is attending a state college to complete his Bachelor's of Science. He has no debt whatsoever at this point. He will probably have some student debt (although he has a savings) for his graduate studies but he is currently working on a research project and hoping he can get published so he can perhaps win a fellowship. Already, his academic work has earned him over $1K in awards (for which he did not apply for) and has at least two professors who have written letters of reference, one of which he has TA'd (biopsychology) and another (applied statistics).

I know he is not anxious to pay for his cohorts' student debt.

[BannonsLiver]

232. +1

I wonder how much debt is due to poor planning and also bad business sense. When you incur $150k in debt to get a job that pays $30k that is a bad personal finance decision.

[ehrnst]

173. I have a vision too. But we expect more from elected officials than twitter wars. (nt)

[pangaia]

39. I'm tired of hearing 'purity,' from anyone, anywhere. It means nothing.

One could say 'moderates' demand 'purity.'

[George II]

42. Please give us your definition of "status quo". Thanks.

[Catch2.2]

56. Agree 100%

Status Quo is part of the reason Trump won. People are tired of the Status Quo. Unfortunately they didn't realize Trump is a piece of sh*t con man!

[ehrnst]

168. No one who uses the term "status quo" ever seems to be able to define it. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

265. Oh sure...I mean what is a few dirty hungry sick kids and all we should hold to our principles

I mean I am sure our 'friends' on the other side of the aisle would have put forth a better plan maybe?

[ehrnst]

271. Crickets once again on a defintion of "status quo."

[RelativelyJones]

8. AOC's bloated ego is showing again.

[redstateblues]

72. What has she done so far?

[Thekaspervote]

77. Indeed! There are, but mostly were freshman congress people that want to blow things up

Alan Grayson comes to mind

[ehrnst]

177. Where is Alan Grayson now? How did his congressional career pan out? (nt)

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. I totally agree with AOC.

[pangaia]

54. I have to say, I do also..in so far as I am glad some of the newcomers are taking

the fight to the fascists in full view...

public opinion can only be swayed by informing the public....

[NRaleighLiberal]

96. (and I am a kinda old guy!)

[pangaia]

109. Me 2

[Catch2.2]

59. Me too!!

[IADEMO2004]

10. Let's blow another one for the Gipper.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Leadership out of touch for sure. Time to retire these

Fine folks who lead a great life of service. Thanks! But we are in a new high media savvy world. And fighting for our lives here. If you won't step aside, hire some people.

[Me.]

13. AOC...1/4...AKA The Squad

They over-estimate their ability and influence. Let's see, it only took her a little over six months to begin making not smart moves.

[George II]

32. NO, she's not attacking "WOC", she's criticizing members of her caucus. Does the fact that they're..

..."WOC" give them full immunity from criticism? Not in the least.

[Me.]

80. Oh PLease

Elevating AOC above her station or importance doesn't work for me. AOC has been out there mouthing off and this was Nancy's reply. If you ask me she's been very patient up to this point.

[mcar]

116. Oh for sweet Jeebus sake

[ehrnst]

175. Do you watch FoxNews? That sounds like "a hot take" that they would come up with. (nt)

[melman]

14. AOC is 100% right

as usual.

[Catch2.2]

61. Yes she is!

[George II]

67. No she isn't.

[sheshe2]

100. Please explain how she is 100% right.

melman

14. AOC is 100% right

as usual.

BTW. Love you sig line. I agree with this 100%! This is spot on. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Don't just complain without being full inform about what one is complaining."

[sheshe2]

138. crickets

[melman]

150. What's the point of this?

I agree with her. That's it.


She said things. I agree with those things. There's nothing to explain.

[ehrnst]

205. She got upset and took to twitter and complained because Pelosi told the truth

that Twitter followers don't get you more votes as a congressperson. That's what passes as a "burn?"

I find that a rather outsized reaction, and indicates a thin skin.

I expect that from Trump, but not from a Democrat.

[Apple Fritter]

256. The internet...

Didn't Pelosi say something rude about four members= four votes. "whatevering" them away is really rude and AOC is already known for calling out bullshit. So unless AOC is angry with EVERYTHING she's ever said on twitter, I doubt she was acting on emotion. So you can say "she's upset and took to twitter" because that's the narrative you want to believe.

[ehrnst]

257. "Whatevering" gets under Trump's skin.

Is that a reaction that we really want to see on the Democratic side?

And yes, AOC sounded very emotional in her tweet, as do the posts of those who are clutching their pearls that Pelosi didn't dote on AOC.

The UMBRAGE by and on behalf of AOC being "WHATEVERED!!!" by one Senior Democrat is a bit outsized for someone who said on Colbert in January that she herself gave "zero fucks" about what people thought about her challenging Senior Democrats...

I guess that changed...

What was "REALLY RUDE" about stating the fact that Twitter followers don't give anyone more votes than they have - which is one?

No one has explained why that's worthy of pearl clutching and outrage in response.

[Apple Fritter]

261. Comparing AOC with trump is silly.

Trump is irrational and yes he will complain about "whatevering" but he'll complain about dead people not thanking him, people not praising him enough, he'll complain about food, weather, and dogs. AOC's comment wasn't really irrational. It was making a point.

AOC responded, like she always does, to any and all bullshit. Even if this comment is "small" why would she just say nothing about it? It's like Pelosi get's to make these kind of comments in public, and expects that there will be no negative public reaction?Why?
"How dare she TWEET!" I mean teenagers aren't the only ones who tweet anymore. The internet is a viable microphone to get out the word.
You know about the posters in here clutching their pearls... It goes both ways. It can be said for Pelosi defenders who react to AOC as if she's a child. BUT I also want to say I am sorry for my original post. I did mean to use second person, and I am sorry because I don't know you so what should I assume, right.

[ehrnst]

264. You're confused- I compared her reaction to Pelosi with Trump's reaction to Pelosi being dismissive.

And what was "bullshit" about Pelosi's statement? She stated the obvious. I guess that hurt some people to acknowledge? Or is it "bullshit" that AOC supporters can't tolerate her being referred to 'dismissively" by one of those Senior Dems that she herself brags about challenging?



Who said "How dare she TWEET!" - perhaps you're confusing me with someone else you're arguing with? Or is this just attacking a straw man?

You know about the posters in here clutching their pearls... It goes both ways. It can be said for Pelosi defenders who react to AOC as if she's a child.

Whataboutery and false equivalence fallacies never help the credibility of an argument. Really.

BUT I also want to say I am sorry for my original post. I did mean to use second person, and I am sorry because I don't know you so what should I assume, right

What post is that?

[Apple Fritter]

269. I'll clarify or at least I'll try.

-Pelosi's statements are inflammatory=BULLSHIT. Is it true? Well sure it's the kind a kind of truth. It's like saying, "Trump is a president that's getting things done. " Is that true? Sure. Is it bullshit? Hell yes. Trump get's his agenda done and ruins lives he's hardly doing what the 45th is suppose to do.

-Oh yep....yes, I was doing a strawman. No one in this thread said "How dare she TWEET." What I meant to emphasized was why is an interview with Pelosi on the new member okay, and not a twitter reaction? Y'know no one is saying that quote in here per say, I just think people really are against social media and politics(For good reasons). I just think it's going to be even more present.

Whataboutery and false equivalence fallacies never help the credibility of an argument. Really.

It's not false equivalence if there's just as many people upset with AOC and her reaction as there are people who are upset with Pelosi. You can see in the comments here that everyone is divided on this spat. It's direct evidence that both sides clutch them pearly pearls!
Also I don't know what whataboutery means...

this one is my original post where I assume:

Didn't Pelosi say something rude about four members= four votes. "whatevering" them away is really rude and AOC is already known for calling out bullshit. So unless AOC is angry with EVERYTHING she's ever said on twitter, I doubt she was acting on emotion. So you can say "she's upset and took to twitter" because that's the narrative you want to believe.

[ehrnst]

281. "because that's the narrative you want to believe."

That defines all the arguments that you just gave.... you are mad because you like AOC, and she is is mad, so you come up with justifications afterwards that "prove" it's not a knee-jerk reaction, but well thought out, logical response that isn't about emotion at all.

You make quantifiable statements like "It's not false equivalence if there's just as many people upset with AOC and her reaction as there are people who are upset with Pelosi. " when you can't back it up. It's what you want to believe, so you created a justification for it being factual

Y'know no one is saying that quote in here per say,

Yes, that's exactly what a strawman is. Hopefully you will have learned that fallacies don't lend credibility to one's argument. Misrepresenting or exaggerating someone else's statements to make one's own seem more reasonable does the opposite.

Pelosi's statements are inflammatory=BULLSHIT.

That's an inflammatory straw man... I guess you haven't learned. It also shows that you are posting while angry and defensive, rather than than thinking it through, and are blurring the lines between what people actually said and the emotional reaction you have towards what they actually said. I never called your opinion BULLSHIT, but you apparently need to attack a strawman that rationalizes your anger at me for pointing making some reasonable observations that don't merit such outsized umbrage.

It's direct evidence that both sides clutch them pearly pearls!

That's continuing the false equivalence.....

Whataboutery: the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

It's like when one calls out Trump on something, then a Trump supporter says "Well, what about when Obama....." as though that's some sort of defense of Trump. You did that with "What about those supporting Pelosi who are "clutching their pearls!"

You are creating "attacks" on you where there are none. One has responsibility for one's own feelings of anger and anxiety, and insulting and accusing other people for these 'attacks' does nothing but discredit one's positions. Just own the fact that you feel protective of AOC and/or just don't like Pelosi, and it is going to be that way no matter what anyone actually does or says.

I'm not going to take the bait and defend the strawmen you attack, and I'm not going to take responsibility for false claims of attacking anyone.

I don't do it with Trump supporters who will always jump to his defense, no matter what, because he's angry at the same people they are, he validates their rage, and any perceived even slight of Trump, no matter how factually based, becomes rationalized a direct malicious personal attack on them and patriotism/Christianity itself.

They can't admit the emotional basis for their reactions, so they'll never understand that their anger isn't a basis for judging what is and isn't a valid criticism of Trump.

[emmaverybo]

278. +1

[ehrnst]

176. No, she's not.

She's very new at this, and still stumbles quite a bit.

[uponit7771]

228. AOC is correct enough here ... There's no bargaining with child abusers

[ehrnst]

238. No, she's ignoring the actual choices that were there.

But she's very new, and hopefully, she'll learn some things.

I'm sure her Hollywood agent is thrilled that she's "unleashing" on twitter, though.

[uponit7771]

254. There are no choices when bargaining with child abusers

[melman]

233. Yes she is

100%

[ehrnst]

239. Nope. Not at all.

[Chemisse]

305. Nobody is always right, especially a newcomer who makes her points quickly and loudly.

I love her; she shakes things up and many of the things she says are spot on.

But she's not always 'right.'

Is she this time? I don't know.

[melman]

306. I didn't say she was

I said "as usual". That doesn't mean always.

[ProudLib72]

15. AOC is correct, but she could be more diplomatic in her responses

[Autumn]

45. I give AOC kudos for answering Pelosi in kind. nt

[ehrnst]

186. Did Pelosi start a pointless Twitter war?

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2019, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

What happened to the brand new congresswoman in January who said she gives "zero f*cks" about people telling her not to "make waves" with senior Democrats.

It sounds like she's now getting very, very, very, very upset when she perceives that she's less than doted on by the most Senior Democrat - who simply stated the obvious, that one's twitter following doesn't give one more votes on the floor.

It certainly did get lots of attention - and many, many people rushing to scold that mean Pelosi woman.

[mopinko]

16. she is the tip of the spear. she is the bad cop.

i hope everyone keeps their dignity, but i am all for having some leading lights, willing to take the lightening bolts, to move things along.

i hope that nancy actually appreciates her. and vice versa.

i am beginning to believe the ptsd theory of dem leadership. still cringing about raygun democrats.
but the time for righteous indignation is upon us.
good for aoc.

[ehrnst]

172. But she's not "willing to take the lighting bolts"

She is very thin skinned, and gets hung up in pointless twitter wars with fact checkers and FoxNews hosts and Trump at time when we need every Dem at work.

[MuseRider]

18. Well said.

Keep it up, it is the only way we change.

[Trumpocalypse]

19. I like AOC but she needs to learn to pick her battles

Don’t mess with Pelosi.

[PatSeg]

25. I agree

They certainly don't have to agree about everything, but going after Pelosi is not a good idea if Ocasio-Cortez hopes to accomplish anything.

[Vinca]

21. Both women are wrong. Our party might consider the "Reagan" rule every so often.

We come off as disorganized, torn apart, squabbling and out of touch when this happens. Pelosi should appreciate that many people share AOC's views and AOC should respect the Speaker and her position.

[MineralMan]

22. Oh Good! Let's Fight Among Ourselves!

That always works out well...

(trust me, it's needed)

[Gothmog]

27. I agree

[LakeArenal]

43. Yes you need it. Skin is getting thinner.

Every word is parsed to death.

[treestar]

291. Never makes sense how the AOC types never want to fight

the Republicans. Just the "centrist" Democrats. I don't think the tea party does that, or I don't hear of it. Maybe they do spend a lot of time fighting "centrist" Republicans? I did talk to right wingers who held their nose to vote for Dubya, who was "liberal." But they voted.

[ehrnst]

301. Indeed. (nt)

[hunter]

23. Oh bother.

I loathe how the press turns everything into a soap opera or sporting event.

Nobody's feelings were hurt.

If you want to find politicians who are thin-skinned and easily offended, look no further than the Republican Party.

[eilen]

24. AOC is a bit full of herself right here

She did not read and understand what the Speaker said.

She can have tons of Twitter followers and lots of upvotes on Reddit and Likes on FB but pandering to particular sectors of the public is not the same thing as achieving comity, collegiality, compromise and cooperation in the Congress. If she ever wants to get anything authored and sponsored passed, she needs to work on relationships among her peers because none of that social media messianic worship translates to additional roll call votes.

Now the Republicans are aware of how easily triggered she is to their comments and will be keeping her busy enough she might try and use her energy to make some more influential allies (legit seasoned allies, not internet famous ones).

So yeah AOC, suppress that selfie impulse, put your phone down and grow up.

[Hekate]

49. I know AOC has a fan-base here, & sometimes she is brilliant, as when she went to the border....

But you have a point, ellen.

Those four freshmen congresswomen control exactly four votes at this time, as Mme Speaker said. They still don't know how the House actually works, only that it works too slowly.

Well tough, young ladies, Nancy Pelosi has been at this for years, a solid San Francisco Democrat down to the marrow of her bones, and the reason she is Speaker of the House and you are not is that Nancy Pelosi does know how it works and does get things done -- sometimes very big things indeed. We would not have had the ACA at all without her.

Maybe one of these now-young women will be Speaker herself one day, but only after putting in the work of whipping Democratic votes and learning how it is done.

[eilen]

68. I am not her constituent

but I do live in upstate NY. And I would love to have a Democratic Congress Rep.--and while AOC sometimes hits it on the mark but she is often kind of a grandstander and likes the spotlight which I think makes her a target. My part of the state is generally a bit more conservative (though Blue) than her district in NYC. I am going to support Dana Balter again in the 2020 cycle.

[emmaverybo]

53. Bravo. NT

[Gothmog]

26. I support Speaker Pelosi

I am not sure why I should care what AOC thinks

[LakeArenal]

46. Exactly. Her constituency is not me.

[Gothmog]

111. The Democratic Party is lucky to have a leader like Speaker Pelosi

[LakeArenal]

114. Yes. Our older leaders not only know what they are doing...

They are fairly scandal free. ( If you don’t count the overstated or mischaracterized). 40 years of real leadership is something to be proud of and honored.

[ehrnst]

179. Ditto. (nt)

[mcar]

216. +1

[George II]

29. That's not going to advance her political career. People in the 14th are already losing patience....

....with her. She needs to start paying attention to her constituents and listening to them.

Also, lots of what she said is just plain false.

I suspect there will be a closed door meeting sometime soon.

[melman]

64. "People in the 14th are already losing patience with her"

Source?

[George II]

66. Google it.

[melman]

73. I did

[George II]

134. What did you find?

[melman]

135. google it

[George II]

141. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12254112

[NYMinute]

214. AOC is not running on DU

She will be running in NY's 14th where people are getting sick of her twitter celebrity antics and losing the Amazon deal.

She will lose the primary this time to Joe Crowley.

[ehrnst]

241. Or even running anywhere else in the U.S. For the time being.

Ocasio-Cortez’ home district in New York does not reflect the overall American demographic picture: Nearly half of the people in New York’s 14th District are of Hispanic or Latino heritage. Less than a quarter of the overall U.S. population has such heritage.

Well, DSA wants every Dem primaried. Careful what one wishes for, I guess.

[ehrnst]

169. So did I.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/aoc-approval-rating-falls-after-amazon-deal-collapse-as-trump-hammers-democrats-over-socialism.html

[George II]

171. Well whaddaya know!

[melman]

230. Where does that say anything about "people in the 14th losing patience with her"

Besides nowhere.


The only article that says anything like that is this one...







But surely people wouldn't be citing the NY Post here. Surely.


So where did that come from?

[ehrnst]

236. These are voters in the state of NY... and they mirror Pelosi and Schumer's ratings in NY

But by all means, move the goal posts, AND attack a straw man if that makes you feel like you look better...

But surely people wouldn't be citing the NY Post here. Surely.

Honey, the only person here citing the NY post is you.

So where did that come from?

And if you had actually read the CNBC article that I posted before firing off a frantic response citing the NY Post, you'd see what polls were being cited...

Here's the title in case you missed it:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s approval rating in New York declines following Amazon deal collapse, while Trump hammers Democrats over ‘socialism’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has grown less popular in New York – even among Democrats – following Amazon’s decision to scrap its planned offices in Queens.

Thirty-one percent of registered voters in the state view the freshman House Democrat favorably, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view, according to a Siena College poll released Monday. In January, 34 percent of New York voters viewed Ocasio-Cortez favorably, versus 29 percent who had an unfavorable opinion, a Quinnipiac University poll found.

Going deeper into the poll:

Fifty-two percent of the freshman congresswoman’s registered constituents in The Bronx and the north-central portion of Queens view her favorably, compared to 33 percent who view her unfavorably.

Ocasio-Cortez’ home district in New York does not reflect the overall American demographic picture: Nearly half of the people in New York’s 14th District are of Hispanic or Latino heritage. Less than a quarter of the overall U.S. population has such heritage.

Ocasio-Cortez’ popularity ratings mirrored the results for both Democratic congressional leaders, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York, among those surveyed in her district.

Now, I'm sure that you know that the 14th District is in New York. And I'm sure that you've heard how AOC 'represents far, far more than that' amongst the Democratic party. However, this article includes two polls of Democrats in her home state of NY, which is going to be an indicator of something, doncha think?

But how about I cite AOC?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is blaming her low approval among Republicans on Fox News' relentless coverage of her

https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-blames-poor-approval-rating-numbers-fox-news-2019-3

[vsrazdem]

95. She is not there to advance her career. She is fighting for people.

[ehrnst]

240. You mean Pelosi? Pelosi doesn't have any aspirations to higher office.

And she certainly doesn't have a Hollywood agent.

[brush]

131. Guess some are still pissed about losing those Amazon jobs.

AOC needs to bring home some bacon to the district. The Speaker can help in that regard but if you're publicly feuding with the Speaker....well?

[George II]

132. That's part of it, but there are other things too, for example:

Voting against the government shutdown earlier this year, essentially voting to keep LaGuardia Airport (one of the largest employers in the district) closed, an aloof attitude toward District constituents, the Amazon deal, and others.

[Hekate]

63. Just curious, but is your Montana congressman as liberal as Nancy? Has he or she been fighting...

...for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and health care rights as many decades as Nancy Pelosi?

It's the people of San Francisco, CA who vote her in as as US Congresswoman. It's her Democratic peers in Congress who vote her into leadership positions.

Time's up? Really? By whose measure?

[George II]

70. Pelosi is elected by the full membership of the House. 220 Democrats voted for her as Speaker....

...fifteen didn't vote for her as symbolic votes (Joe Biden and Tammy Duckworth received votes!)

That was about six months ago. Clearly the Democrats in the House do not feel that her time is over. "Compromised"? What are you insinuating here?

[Me.]

83. As MoDo Said

The two who tried so hard to take her down, Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton, are each flailing about trying to get a presidential run going.

[LittleGirl]

31. As a boomer

Pelosi needs to listen to the youth of this country because they are the future. I am sick of Congress not doing their damn jobs.

Change is coming.

[NRaleighLiberal]

97. Well said. Same here.

[HopeAgain]

155. My sentiments exactly...

as a boomer too.

[ehrnst]

174. Since when has the Speaker of the House's job been to answer to anyone other than Congress?

She is doing her damn job - but somehow people blame her for "failures" that were never her job in the first place.

I don't recall anyone complaining about the job that Tom Foley or Jim Wright were doing "listening to the youth."

[LittleGirl]

188. In this case, she was condensending so it points right back to her. eom

[ehrnst]

192. Goalposts moved, I see...

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi was quoted by Maureen Dowd. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

She said clearly that the four freshman have a following of thousands/millions, yet each one of them has only one vote in congress. Fact is those millions of fans do not give a congressperson an additional vote.

What did Pelosi say that wasn't true? They're four people and they have four votes. Did the truth sting that much?



Pelosi is the one doing her "damn job" not spending hours on Twitter getting into fights with FoxNews hosts, critics and fact checkers.

[G_j]

226. agree

this boomer agrees 100%

[BannonsLiver]

234. Change is always coming

That’s how the world works. Things change. People retire, die and quit. Machines wear out. Technology advances.

So change is ever present. Now, whether it’s the kind of change an individual wants is another matter entirely.

[JohnnyRingo]

35. I don't agree with AOC

Nancy Pelosi has the experience and the chops that Ms Cortez only wishes she could have.
If she survives a few elections, perhaps AOC will one day rival Pelosi in pure political wile and finesse. I hope so.

[emmaverybo]

51. +1000

[patphil]

44. Buffey Sainte-Marie says it in her song,

"You Got to Run"

Sometimes you got to take a stand, just because you can.
Sometimes you got to run with the Spirit of the Wind.

AOC isn't just 4 votes, she's a voice that needs to be heard.
A voice that has been silent in the Democratic Party for too long.

Patrick Phillips

[sheshe2]

105. Actually...

patphil

44.

AOC isn't just 4 votes, she's a voice that needs to be heard.
A voice that has been silent in the Democratic Party for too long.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi landed a solid burn on freshmen Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley when she suggested that their significance is overblown and based mostly on social media following.

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi was quoted by Maureen Dowd. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

....

Actually AOC gets one vote and one vote only as do all congresspeople. She does not get 4 votes. Nancy was referring to 4 freshman Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley

A voice that has been silent in the Democratic Party for too long.

Who's voice has been silent to long, AOC? She just got there 9 moths ago.

I look forward to your response. Thanks.

[patphil]

133. Yes, she is one vote,

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2019, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

and the 4 people Nancy Pelosi were referring to are 4 votes, but
Nancy's put down wasn't just to them, but to the resurgence of progressive voices not just in the House, but in America.
THAT voice went silent when Bill Clinton became president and steered the Democratic Party away from the left and into the center of the political scene.
It left many people thinking there wasn't much difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
It resulted in 8 years of GWB and huge gains for the Republicans in the House and Senate, which eventually resulted in the Trump debacle.
AOC is a voice for many millions of Americans who see their country slipping away under the onslaught of far right conservatives.
This is what Nancy Pelosi is afraid of: NP thinks this new-found progesssive spirit will diminish our chances in 2020.
This is why she came down so hard on these freshmen Congresswomen.
However, I believe these 4 women are needed to energize the Democratic base.
You need to look at the whole picture.
We are at war, and AOC is in the forefront of the battle to rescue America.
Pelosi has her agenda. It has its positive points, but publicly attacking AOC and the other 3 Congresswomen is really not a good strategy.
I think Pelosi is frustrated that they are getting too much press and too much recognition.
She wants to control them.
It's not going to happen, and shouldn't happen.
Oh, and by the way, they have a huge following that may or may not be reflected on social media. I can see it in the faces and words of those who applaud their work.

Added edits below.

I just thought I'd add that AOC and others toured the camps at Clint and El Paso and were perhaps a bit riled up at the criminal conditions there.
The Senate version of the spending bill was much different than the House version, and didn't have safeguards to see that the money was spent the way the House wanted it spent. The Senate version allowed the money to be redirected wherever Trump wanted it to be.
Pelosi didn't want a joint committee to put together a compromise bill as that would take a couple weeks, and she felt the money was needed now.
BUT, without any stipulation on how it would be spent, there is no way to insure it will be spent in a timely manner, or in a way that addresses the criminal conditions in the camps.
If you have the time, the Sunday NY Times has a long article on the Clint camp that is quite troubling to read.
Folks, this is Administration Policy, and these kids are pawns in a cruel game.
I think AOC was correct in her criticism, and Nancy Pelosi was off base in her response.
Thank God for the AOC's of the world who stand up and speak truth to power.

Patrick Phillips

[sheshe2]

273. I am sorry.

It is very difficult to read a post that does not use paragraphs.

Like this.

[div class="excerpt]Yes, she is one vote,

and the 4 people Nancy Pelosi were referring to are 4 votes, but
Nancy's put down wasn't just to them, but to the resurgence of progressive voices not just in the House, but in America.

THAT voice went silent when Bill Clinton became president and steered the Democratic Party away from the left and into the center of the political scene. It left many people thinking there wasn't much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It resulted in 8 years of GWB and huge gains for the Republicans in the House and Senate, which eventually resulted in the Trump debacle.

AOC is a voice for many millions of Americans who see their country slipping away under the onslaught of far right conservatives. This is what Nancy Pelosi is afraid of: NP thinks this new-found progesssive spirit will diminish our chances in 2020.
This is why she came down so hard on these freshmen Congresswomen. However, I believe these 4 women are needed to energize the Democratic base.

etc etc.

See how much easier it is to read?

Fact is I do not agree with a word you said.

It left many people thinking there wasn't much difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Ah, the both parties are the same canard. Gotcha. Not.

AOC is a voice for many millions of Americans who see their country slipping away under the onslaught of far right conservatives.

Ask AOC's constituents how they feel about her voice.

‘Her heart is not in the Bronx’: Ocasio-Cortez’s constituents turn against her

https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/her-heart-is-not-in-the-bronx-aocs-own-district-turns-against-congresswoman/

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s approval rating in New York declines following Amazon deal collapse, while Trump hammers Democrats over ‘socialism’

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/aoc-approval-rating-falls-after-amazon-deal-collapse-as-trump-hammers-democrats-over-socialism.html

I think AOC was correct in her criticism, and Nancy Pelosi was off base in her response. Thank God for the AOC's of the world who stand up and speak truth to power.

Well she responded with fire and sadly had no clue what Nancy actually said.

[ehrnst]

285. You certainly have a dim view of Democrats, and Madame Speaker Pelosi in particular.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I think Pelosi is frustrated that they are getting too much press and too much recognition.

That craving for attention that is going to those younger women is probably why Pelosi talked to a Hollywood agent even before the current session started - Oh wait.

But do continue to put forth that utterly non-sexist caricature of Speaker Pelosi as being envious of the attention that younger women are getting, especially from men who are sick of seeing that older woman in charge, getting all that attention, year after year.

[George II]

288. Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

286. You haven't been listening, if you think that Dems and Republicans are 'pretty much the same"

You clearly aren't a woman or POC if you don't see any difference.

Privilege has its benefits, doesn't it? Reducing the factual statements of the most effective Speaker in modern history [link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12254953| to 'feeling frustrated by the attention given to those four younger women' with no thought whatsoever to the idea of how tone deaf that sounds coming from a self-described progressive, seems to be one of them.

I suggest that you to read your very own characterization of Madame Speaker out loud, and think about how it sounds before you criticize the Democratic party any further as not being progressive enough for you. Or maybe you should read up on what the Speaker does, and what the responsibility and authority of that position entails.

I think Pelosi is frustrated that they are getting too much press and too much recognition.
She wants to control them.

Everything's there but the mirror and the poison apple.

[emmaverybo]

48. Everyone who has ever become powerful has to defer a bit to power first, and learn the ropes.

AOC was cavalierly bashing Dems day one. Right or wrong, if she wants to extend her influence beyond her basic fan base and have real decision-making clout, she will have to use some diplomacy and not take on a leader of Pelosi’s stature in her own party. Build the resume first.

[SunSeeker]

58. Mediate's pro-GOP bias: "She's saying the old, establishment Democrats don't know...Democrat base"

Mediate loves to stir the shit. AOC never said that.

First, AOC would never use the term "Democrat base." That is grammatically wrong and buys into the fake name given our party by Republicans. It's the Democratic base.

Second, AOC's response is the predictable result of Pelosi's slam of AOC, and is relatively mild. She does not even mention Pelosi.

Pelosi must have know this would be the result when she made her "public whatever" remark. I think Pelosi made a mistake, she is not perfect. I expect she will patch things up shortly.

[ehrnst]

295. "Slam?" You would think that someone who stated that she had "zero fucks to give"

about what people said about her taking senior Democrats to task, wouldn't be taking such UMBRAGE when one of them rolls their eyes when speaking about her.

This appears to be more a case of AOC being able to dish it out but not being able to take it, than Pelosi SLAMMING someone.

[budkin]

62. Pelosi is not looking out for us

That much is obvious with her outright refusal to start impeachment proceedings in the face of all the laws Trump has broken.

[Thekaspervote]

71. Pelosi is doing the exact right thing.

We cannot impeach him. Most know this. Now if we had the senate she would be able to move forward

[SunSeeker]

147. No, we absolutely can impeach him, we have the majority in the House.

That is all it takes to impeach

We just can't remove him. That requires a trial in the Senate, and McConnell to go along with it. That of course will not happen...unless what we expose in the impeachment proceedings makes it impossible for McConnell not to go along.

[RelativelyJones]

65. Pelosi's 100% right and I will take her judgement over AOC's any day.

[NurseJackie]

227. Agreed.

[Loki Liesmith]

69. Look forward to watching Nancy kneecap AOC

Pelosi is a knife fighter.

[EffieBlack]

76. She won't kneecap her

Doesn’t need to. She’ll just let her hoist herself with her own petard ...

[sheshe2]

275. Snap.

[George II]

136. I like what her daughter said: She'll "cut your head off and you won't even know you're bleeding"!

[ehrnst]

187. Pelosi has no need or wish to "kneecap" AOC. AOC is no threat to Pelosi.

I think that AOC will go the way of Alan Grayson, and self destruct as a congressperson.

She has much higher ambitions, and I believe she's treating this current job as a stepping stone to something she feels is more worthy of her, much more high profile.

Why waste time laboring in meetings with constituents or committees like the other freshmen?

[sheshe2]

276. A stepping stone.

Ummhmm.



I stole you pic.

[sheshe2]

276. A stepping stone.

Ummhmm.



I stole you pic.

[DavidDvorkin]

75. Hasn't she had her 15 minutes yet?

[Crunchy Frog]

81. I'm with AOC on this. I await the flames.

[True Dough]

82. The old guard/new guard tensions have been simmering for months

Maybe it's starting to boil over. Revolutions are usually ugly. The timing of this generational struggle is key. It could put a lot of pressure on our nominee in the primary if the junior congresswomen gain more momentum. Hopefully it's sorted by then and not splintering the party.

Maybe Katie Porter can be the referee.

[George II]

86. I prefer the way Katie Hill, Jahana Hayes, and Sharice Davids, among others, operate.

They're too busy learning how to be effective Congresswomen to lash out at their peers and superiors.

[Me.]

103. Well Said

and don't forget Rep. Porter who has also been wonderful. Oh right, they're all younger too.

[ehrnst]

170. But are people interested to know what brand of lipstick they wear?

Isn't that the metric now for "getting people involved" in politics?

[mcar]

217. Yep

[Turbineguy]

84. Yes.

The more infighting we can do, the better for trump.

[chillfactor]

87. The more AOC opens her mouth

the more support she loses from me.....I am really beginning to not like her and believe she does more damage to the Democratic Party then any help she gives. .

[ehrnst]

242. The DSA states that their mission is to "re-build the Democratic Party from scratch"

And you can't rebuild something without first demolishing it.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america

[PatrickforO]

91. Certainly some interesting debate on this thread.

It seems social media has expanded the bully pulpit to those for whom it has traditionally been out of reach.

Truth to power always stings, badly. That's why the GOP has made Ocasio-Cortez such a lightning rod. She makes them feel damned uncomfortable because she calls them on their actions.

One of the things that makes AOC so powerful, 'freshman' Congresswoman that she is, is that she doesn't care of she's reelected or not, and she, like many, many, many Americans is tired of the same-old, same-old. Now she is speaking her truth to the Democratic power structure and they don't like it any better than the Republicans do.

Here's my point: those in the Democratic race for president, and those considering running for House or Senate seats should take heed. This isn't just some obnoxious freshman Representative. People across the board are suffering in this country right now, and come January 2021, they will want the new president, Senate and House to actually get stuff done, specifically on healthcare, climate, student debt and immigration.

Yes, I acknowledge that calls for impeachment hearings may be 'untimely' in a political sense, and just darned inconvenient! I certainly concede the point that AOC has become quite inconvenient, as in being a thorn in the side, to both the Republican and to a lesser degree Democratic leadership. Sure.

However, these concentration camps are INTOLERABLE. People, children are dying. They are un-American and they need to be closed down NOW. And within the next fortnight roundups will begin. Nacht und nebel. Please forgive us who want action now. As MLK said:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

And again:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

[Peace06]

93. Pelosi and AOC

They both need to just STOP IT, regardless of who is right or wrong. trumps team just loves this
Focus on teamwork saving our Democracy!

[empedocles]

112. Not that 'bothsiderism'. AOC would be more constructive if she would

learn to piss outside of the big Dem tent, - not inside of it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

98. Well stated.

[Lancero]

99. How far have we fallen to make standing against concentration camps a purity test?

[hunter]

101. There's no "fall" here but what the fuck USA Right Wing and Russian mobsters trolls make of it.

.

[Horizens]

102. What Has AOC Accomplished ?

Nothing

[Thekaspervote]

104. Correct! But she could get some things done if she were to channel all that energy

[ehrnst]

189. She channels it into celebrity-boosting activities. (nt)

[Me.]

108. So EveryThing AOC Demanded Or Nothing?

Great strategy, the kids get nothing then, cause if you and AOC think MM was going to bend to the will of she and her squad you're both kidding yourselves. And as for Nancy's comment, it was fact and not dumb...they are but 4 votes in a caucus of over 200 and theirs do not override the others.

[DeminPennswoods]

129. Not at all

Pelosi got forced into a Hobson's choice, reject the Senate version and go to conference to iron out differences, possibly delaying funding by weeks, or accepting the Senate version that gave Trump/DHS carte blanche on how to spend the funds and passing it through the House. THAT should or could have been the story.

Instead, she made a statement about 4 freshman who voted their consciences that completely overtook the remark she made about McConnell at the end. She could have easily said her caucus members are free to vote aye or no on any bill up for a vote, then moved on to blast McConnell.

So rather than talking about McConnell's strong arm move and potential for money not to be spent as intended, we're talking about 4 votes that in the end didn't matter.

[Me.]

139. She Didn't Tell/ Doesn't Tell Them How To Vote

!. There wasn't going to be a conference. MM said take it or leave it. For the sake of the children Nancy took it.

2. THey did vote no, so I guess no one stopped them.

3. I for one heard? & read Nancy's remarks about MM.

4. For all their concern about the children which has been going on for a long time now, why is this past week the first week they went there and made speeches and acted as if they were the only ones concerned?

[Skittles]

107. does this all sound like some kind of setup?

Nancy would have to be stupid to say something like that, and AOC would have to be stupid to respond like that - seriously, WTF, they're well on their way to solidly splitting the Democratic party

[empedocles]

110. Just what the Dems need to help beat trump - right?

Seems that 'the squad' could care less about trump - they are so much smarter than anyone else

[tymorial]

113. I have been critical of AOC but I am not seeing where anything she has said is inaccurate

Or is the real problem is that she is questioning Pelosi.

[brush]

128. The problem is the number of social media followers doesn't equate to votes.

If you have 500k followers you still have just one vote.

AOC has to start making alliances with other Dems besides the 3 other rookies she's aligned with. She's has no power base v the Speaker who has hundreds of reps backing her.

Publicly feuding with the Speaker of the House who is a member of your own party is not wise. Going against the Speaker if you're in the other party gets you attention and notice but going against your own Speaker may get you left out of bacon to tae home to your district and worse yet, may get you primaried.

[struggle4progress]

115. "Well, that's enough coverage of Hitler and the Nazis! Now let's talk about how policy differences

among the Social Democrats threaten to end German unity and tear the country apart!"

[betsuni]

118. Good one.

[betsuni]

117. Tweet in haste, repent at leisure.

I am not confident AOC knows what's going on. She was mad at Pelosi about the border funding bill: "we didn't even try to negotiate." With Mitch "Grim Reaper" McConnell? Uh, no.

[YOHABLO]

119. For a freshmen congresswoman, she definitely has some courage.

I think AOC makes some valid points and she's not afraid to express them.

[BannonsLiver]

244. Ah, courage. Is that what they're calling it these days?

[LibFarmer]

120. I stand with speaker Pelosi.

I detest inexperienced and uninformed people with big mouths.

Some people find one feather, attach it to their back and think they are a peacock.

[Me.]

140. Love That Peacock Bit

[peggysue2]

149. LOL!!

That's a very apt image, the single-feathered peacock.

And AOC has been on the job for how long??? But her opinion is suppose to outweigh Speaker Pelosi's.



This was once referred to as the arrogance of youth.

AOC would be much better served (as would her constituents) by observing and taking copious notes on the Speaker, a woman with a proven political track record. It's called learning as opposed to posing.

[ehrnst]

245. I'll go with the one that doesn't have aspirations to bigger things than doing her job now,

and isn't taking meetings with Hollywood agents.

[Starry Messenger]

137. I know this will seem like an odd opinion but I think Pelosi welcomes these kinds of discussions

Mediaite has kind of a right-wing orientation, they exist to get clicks. AOC has criticized Pelosi before, but Nancy reels her back in. The House Dems are a delegation with a lot of different viewpoints, and I think Nancy wouldn't think of this discussion as a "brutal airing of laundry." Just some thoughts.

[stillcool]

142. It's like a food-fight

Nothing of substance, just pick a side and throw something.

[LibFarmer]

143. I stand with Speaker Pelosi

I stand with experience.
I stand with knowledge.
I stand with level-headed decision making.

I stand against twitter mania.
I stand against elected officials trying to become celebrities like Kim Kardashian.
I stand against loud-mouthed people with no substance.

[NYMinute]

144. Speaker pelosi is right

AOC is completely wrong.

[jcmaine72]

148. Now more than ever we need unity.

If there's something AOC would like to get off her chest with regards to Speaker Pelosi there will be plenty of time after Trump is shown the door. Considering what's at stake here, one gap in the line right now is one too many.

[democratisphere]

151. And meanwhile drumpf's approval rating increases.

Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror.

[shanny]

156. No. It doesn't.

He has a base. He also has a ceiling.

[democratisphere]

161. Apparently he hasn't hit the ceiling yet.

We had better find a way to bring some of his followers to our side. Undermining our own doesn't make US look worthy of a switch.

[betsuni]

157. What do you mean by "Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror"?

[democratisphere]

162. When we undermine our own how does that look to the opposition?!

[ehrnst]

198. You should ask the one deciding to take to twitter to complain about

someone talking about her having one vote.

[HopeAgain]

154. Is this party hell bent to

chase away it's future? I know a lot of young progressives who are all in on AOC because they want somebody to push the party left. Seems to me the most direct attack was from Pelosi.

[betsuni]

158. Push the party left how?

[Trumpocalypse]

160. The Democratic Party has always been most successful

when it is a big tent representing moderates and liberals. When it has gone too far in one direction it loses elections.

[Tarc]

163. Go AOC!

[Ace Rothstein]

166. I'm ready for a new Speaker.

[ehrnst]

178. That's up to congress.

You might want to look up how the Speaker of the House is selected, and what terms they serve.

The House elects its speaker at the beginning of a new Congress (i.e. biennially, after a general election) or when a speaker dies, resigns or is removed from the position intra-term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

So she's there until at least 2020. She has stated that she will not run in 2024.


You're welcome.

[Ace Rothstein]

268. I'm very well aware of how the Speaker is elected, doesn't mean I can't hope for a better Speaker.

Thanks for answering something I didn't ask for.

[ehrnst]

270. I just wanted to point out who it was up to, and who it wasn't up to.

You're welcome.

I mean, I'm ready for more vacation time, but I know that it's not going to happen until I've been on the job longer.

[58Sunliner]

181. There is a reason she replaced an established Dem.

I don't see it as hostile. I'm effing tired of the work with Satan crowd-think that has determined our policy. Not just with this administration either. Those "moderates" did not take on issues that would have sunk them perhaps. Smart.
"She’s saying that the old, establishment Democrats don’t know what the Democrat base wants, and haven’t done anything worthwhile anyway."
Not true. The only one blatantly hostile I see is the poster.
"Pelosi brought the Senate version of the border funding bill — which did not contain the safeguards that were written into the House version"-why is that?? Why the efff can't we just stay on point??? Why didn't we insist on those safeguards???

[awesomerwb1]

184. This is not the right way to go about it.

I am almost ready for a new speaker myself.....giving Nancy the benefit of the doubt on most things BUT (yes, BUT)

BUT, for example, I can bitch all I want about how a General Manager is managing the signings and trades of my favorite teams. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't mean I could do better.

This is too strong from AOC. The comments from Pelosi were not wise either.

This shit should be handled internally not via TV or Twitter.

Just the same way I am almost ready for a new speaker, I am almost ready for someone more moderate in AOC's district if she doesn't find a way to air her disapproval/frustrations in a less destructive manner.

I have almost had it with this Democratic self destructing bullshit.

[jalan48]

190. Juggling the demands of big corporate donors while dealing with a maverick populist like AOC

can't be easy. AOC upset one of the most powerful members of the House in the last election. He has since become a K Street lobbyist.There are differences within the Party and those differences are starting to show in a public way. We saw something like this during the Vietnam War. Centrists back then supported the War while many younger Dems said end the War now. Change isn't always easy.

[ehrnst]

194. Well, not all of congress can spend hours in twitter wars with FoxNews personalities, fact checkers

and critics.

Some people have to do the work. I guess you could call those "differences."

BTW - "One of the most powerful members of the House" didn't bother to show up at all to campaign, and his opponent couldn't get but 12% of the voters motivated to turn out for the Primary.

[jalan48]

195. Change is difficult and messy no doubt.

[ehrnst]

196. Day long Twitter wars and speaking at SXSW are especially difficult, I guess....

[jalan48]

199. I don't do twitter so I can't say.

[ehrnst]

200. So what is the "difficult and messy" part about "change"

you were talking about in your response to my post?

Some people doing real work while others complain on Twitter?

[jalan48]

209. Messy has to do with competing interests. Take health care for example. The insurance industry has a

direct stake in what type of health care system we have in the country. Adopting a taxpayer-funded national health care program would adversely affect their profits. That's why there are lobbyists and donations from the insurance industry to politicians. The Defense budget is another example where corporate interests work behind the scenes to block cuts to the budget. Pelosi's job is much more difficult than AOCs for sure because she's such a big fundraiser for the Party.

[ehrnst]

210. So AOC's job is easier than Pelosi's because Pelosi is in the pocket of donors, so Pelosi can't be

do what is ethical, and therefore AOC's "ethics" has a messy clash with Pelosi's "competing interests" with "ethics" due to her being controlled by donors.

And Pelosi is only fighting to keep the ACA, because "the health insurance industry" will lose profits if she supports Bernie's MFA bill."

Easier than critical thinking, I guess.

[jalan48]

219. Not at all. We have a system where it takes a lot of money for most politicians to get elected.

AOC lives in a district where she doesn't have to worry about a Republican challenger. She doesn't need to go big Wall St corporations and firms (insurance companies for example) to raise money. In this way she's much freer to speak her mind than most politicians. For Pelosi it's more difficult given her role as a major fundraiser. It doesn't make Pelosi unethical, she's doing what she thinks she needs to do to help Democrats, even though she is in a safe district like AOC.

[ehrnst]

220. So what is Pelosi's "Competing Interest" with ethics as a party fundraiser?

It doesn't make Pelosi unethical, she's doing what she thinks she needs to do to help Democrats,

As "opposed" to AOC - who is doing what, exactly if not "doing what she thinks she needs to do to help Democrats?"

You state that Pelosi is juggling "big donor demands," yet you provide no evidence that she answers to anyone but Congressional Democrats.

Isn't then AOC juggling the demands of a Hollywood agent with her job as an effective congressperson, a "conflict of interest" as you state Pelosi has?

So why isn't Pelosi as "free" to do the right thing because she's in a safe district, which you say "frees up" AOC?

Who has gone to "Big Wall Street corporations" to "raise money?" And what is that "big wall street corporation money" being raised for?

And what is the evidence that Pelosi is engaged in a quid pro quo for that alleged "big wall street corporation money?" Or the "health care industry?"

Interesting how the "being in the pocket of Wall Street" gets bandied about against HRC and Pelosi, but no one ever manages to produce any evidence of it - even when confronted directly on television....

But surprise me.

[ehrnst]

229. Certainly having a Big Hollywood agent isn't unethical either....

Pelosi doesn't have doing to be doing something that an agent believes might help her publicity for a future book or run for higher office, so in that way, she's much freer to do the job for the sake of doing the job - as you put it - instead of as an audition for something bigger.

I mean, that's your own definition of "conflict of interest" and "obligations" applied evenly, yes?

What's good for the goose....

[jalan48]

235. Like the old adage goes, "Money talks, bullshit walks"....

[ehrnst]

237. Tell me, what does a Hollywood agent promise?

Lots of opportunities to create a better, more progressive future for our country and one's constituents? What is "10%" of that for an agent?



I think we've determined who's "walking" and who's "talking," and who the money is 'talking to," as you put it.

[lapucelle]

251. The talent agency deal apparently fell through for the stalwart representative for the 14th district

According to The Daily Beast:

Multiple publishing industry sources told The Daily Beast that the freshman Democrat retained the talent agency CAA and took meetings earlier this year about writing a potential book. The project, one industry source said, was ultimately pulled, but for reasons that remain mysterious.

snip=====================================================

Senators, governors, and other national political figures often churn out everything from children’s books to personal memoirs.

But it is less common for sitting House members to release books. House rules mandate that sitting members cannot accept book advances, a measure implemented after then-incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich faced criticism for accepting a $4 million book advance from publisher HarperCollins (a massive sum even by today’s standards).

While Ocasio-Cortez’s earning potential is severely curtailed, both Omar and Crenshaw inked deals before officially joining congress, likely avoiding the rule limiting advance payments.

Looks like Crenshaw and Omar (who signed their deals before taking office) are following BS's advice.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hired-agent-and-explored-a-book-deal?ref=scroll

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelkramerbussel/2019/01/16/representative-ilhan-omar-signs-memoir-book-deal-will-cover-journey-from-refugee-to-congresswoman/#424441ae5b8d

[ehrnst]

284. Things that make you go Hmmm. (nt)

[ehrnst]

215. What "demands of big donors" is Pelosi juggling?

What are your sources that she answers to anyone other than Dems in Congress?

[ehrnst]

263. Crickets....

Thought so...

[Paladin]

193. Quick! Send in Maureen Dowd to do a stupid column about AOC.

All about AOC's fashion sense and eating habits, light on AOC's political beliefs. It ought to be easy work for Mo Dowd, after that shit she wrote about Pelosi a few days ago.

[EleanorR]

197. The "Democrat base"?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

201. She has the right and prerogative to speak her mind

Whether she is right or wrong or whether or not Pelosi could be doing a better job holding Trumpublicans accountable is a matter of opinion, of course, but I think that a lot of us feel the same sort of outrage of the crimes against humanity being committed at our southern border and the farce of a government we have running the country at large at the moment. I sort of hear and understand both sides here and don't think that we should stifle any debate/voices.

[ehrnst]

211. Pelosi stated that having a large twitter following doesn't give you more votes on the floor.

Why do you think that AOC got so offended at that statement?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

218. I'm not AOC so I will not speak for her

But, while essentially true, *I* would take it as being dismissive and probably be a bit irritated with such a statement.

[ehrnst]

225. One would think that a thicker skin might be beneficial to someone in congress

who enjoys the spotlight.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

247. Considering how much she has been dragged by virtually everybody since her election

I'd say she has fairly thick skin. Doesn't mean that she doesn't occasionally act.....IDK.....human.

[ehrnst]

248. Dragged? By whom?

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2019, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

If you're talking about Twitter, no one forces her to tweet., let alone get into day long back and forths with people.

She certainly does seek out the spotlight, unlike many of her freshman colleagues and with that comes a lot of things that maybe she doesn't like. I think that she should take a cue from Pelosi on how to handle really being dragged.

She's blaming FoxNews for her sagging approval ratings. If Pelosi was to say anything even remotely similar, Pelosi would be dragged by everyone, particularly those who pitying AOC for any negative blowback - when AOC is out there on twitter daily.

She said in January on Colbert that she gives "zero f*cks" about people telling her not to "make waves" with senior Democrats. But now it sounds like she's getting very, very upset when the most Senior Democrat in Congress doesn't dote on her.

If you want to be loud - fine. Complaining when people get loud back (which Pelosi didn't do to her) doesn't indicate a readiness for contentious public life.

She's a human being, and has the capacity to learn how to deal gracefully with the real world consequences of seeking out the spotlight and saying things that one knows will get a strong reaction.

[lapucelle]

252. "Dragged by virtually everyone"? She was on the cover of Time. N/T

[ehrnst]

260. Please tell us who is stopping her from speaking her mind...

Straw man, anyone?

How is this thread even happening if she wasn't permitted to speak her mind?

Some people seem to think that any reaction to her other than praise is somehow unacceptable...or censorship even.

When one seeks the spotlight, one shouldn't complain when one doesn't always receive standing ovations. No one owes anyone unquestioning praise, nor should they feel entitled to it, especially when they pursue a very, very public presence.

[ehrnst]

202. "Burn?" Pelosi is right. Twitter followiers don't give one an additional vote. Too bad AOC took

umbrage at that factual statement, and it was weaponized in the OP....

What happened to the AOC who told Colbert she had "zero fucks to give" about what people say about her challenging senior Democrats?

One Senior Democrat "whatevers" her, and she is livid....and so is anyone who apparently doesn't think that she can take being "whatevered!!"

[BeckyDem]

208. Why aren't we holding Trump accountable? He is blatantly breaking human rights for

you know, HUMAN BEINGS. Why can't we go after him for it???

[ehrnst]

212. Thank you! (nt)

[BeckyDem]

282. You're welcome!

[MineralMan]

213. AOC and Nancy Pelosi represent two different wings of the

Democratic Party. AOC is a first-term House member, elected in a District in NYC. Nancy Pelosi is a long time Democratic leader who has twice been Speaker of the House.

Here's the thing: Far more Democratic House members will stand with Pelosi than with AOC. In 2018, we regained a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Most of those who flipped a Republican seat in the House did not have an endorsement from AOC. Of those who did have her endorsement, only a handful won a House seat.

Right now, there is not a Democratic majority for things like impeachment or the Green New Deal. What does that mean? It means that the party has not shifted to the left, but is still moderate in the majority.

AOC represents a a shift to the left, but that shift has not led to a majority that share her points of view on issues, and it takes a majority to make anything happen. Democrats only have a majority in one House of Congress. Until we have a majority in both houses, and at least 60 votes in the Senate, there is little legislation that can become law.

We have a mixed set of points of view among Democrats, which means that only through compromise among Democrats will anything pass in the House.

If we are very, very fortunate and can elect a Senate majority, things will look better, but there will still not be consensus among Democrats. We are going to have to work together to find a middle ground, or nothing will happen.

Let AOC get elected a couple of more times and she will have a stronger position from which to push her ideas. Until then, she is just another freshman House member and part of a minority of the Democratic caucus.

That's a fact, and nothing is going to change that immediately. AOC has to win her district again in 2020. Will she?

[ehrnst]

221. AOC represents the 14th district of NY. (nt)

[MineralMan]

222. Yes, she does.

She has some like-minded colleagues in the House, of course. That's what I meant. She can work to add to that number and build her own coalition in the House. That's what most members do when they're trying to build a power base.

If she wins a couple more terms in her district, she will be able to build that coalition more effectively. Nancy Pelosi has had decades to create a coalition of people who align themselves with her. That's how all that legislative stuff gets done, frankly. Even when your party has a majority, if you can't muster a majority, you won't be Speaker of the House, which is an incredibly powerful position.

Nancy Pelosi understands how that body functions, perhaps better than any sitting House member. If I were a freshman congress member, I'd be studying Pelosi carefully if I had any thoughts of becoming powerful myself. I'd be looking to enlist her as a mentor. I wouldn't be attacking her, to tell you the truth. It's a slow-moving body of people.

[ehrnst]

223. Well, if one is more interested in celebrity, one might do what one's Hollywood agent

advises rather than looking to a mentor in congress.

[MineralMan]

224. I can't speak to that, really.

A lack of experience, combined with a great deal of zeal, however, isn't always a terrific combination. Congress has enormous inertia.

[BannonsLiver]

231. More like impotent rage.

[ehrnst]

249. It certainly did get her some attention and people leaping to her defense...

[BigDemVoter]

262. I wish she would shut the fuck up.

I like AOC, I sincerely do. BUT. . . We will not get ANYWHERE by tearing down the Speaker of the House. I do not like this one little bit.

[ehrnst]

296. AOC talks big about "giving zero fucks" about what she thinks of Dems telling her not to make waves

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2019, 07:47 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-to-stephen-colbert-i-give-zero-fucks

Later, Colbert pressed her on some of the backlash she’s received from members of her own party who tell her to “wait your turn” and “don’t make waves.” The host said, “I want to ask this question in a respectful manner, knowing also that you’re from Queens, so you will understand this question. On a scale from zero to some, how many fucks do you give?”

After thinking for a second, Ocasio-Cortez said, “I think it’s zero.”

but when one of those Senior Democrats even halfway rolls their eyes when speaking about here, then it's UNACCEPTABLE, and it's being dismissive of CHILDREN DYING AT THE BORDER! and she takes to twitter with her UMBRAGE!

Sounds like someone can dish it out and talk big, but can't take it when one of those Democrats dismisses her twitter following as being equal to more votes on policy.

[ElementaryPenguin]

297. I wish AOC was the Speaker NOW!

Pelosi's reluctance to impeach treasonous Trump is weakening, by the day, our chances of saving this democracy!

Equating Trump's treason with Bill Clinton's consensual affair is mindbogglingly idiotic!

Meekness and reason does not stop dictators, folks! (Nor does strongly-worded letters)

Go AOC!!

[ehrnst]

298. Democrats in congress choose the speaker, based on who they know

has the skill, the smarts and the experience.

They keep choosing Speaker Pelosi.

Why do you think Speaker Pelosi would choose to "weaken our democracy?"

What does AOC know that she doesn't?

[ElementaryPenguin]

299. So is Nancy Pelosi's judgement beyond reproach now?

AOC knows that impeaching Trump, because he has committed impeachable crimes, is the right thing to do - as it is the obligation of Pelosi and the House to defend the Constitution.

AOC probably also understands that to suggest that impeaching Trump will make him stronger politically is absolutely LUDICROUS!! (Whether he's actually removed or not!)

Every Democratic friend I have is infuriated with Pelosi not having begun at least an impeachment inquiry.

[ehrnst]

300. That was a pretty fierce attack on a straw man.

And a false dillema to boot.

So you're saying that Nancy simply chooses to "not do the right thing."

You haven't answered why you think that she is deliberately refusing to do "the right thing."

Any ideas?

How do you think she's managed to fool her Democratic colleagues all these years who trust her judgement on what to do enough to keep on voting her their leader?

Any ideas on why tall those Democratic leaders are so "gullible" that they don't know what you and AOC know?

And if impeaching bad actors immediately is so clearly the right thing to do, I assume that you want congress to impeach Clarence Thomas, as well?

Why do you think that Nancy isn't "doing that right thing" either? By your standards, she should be.

Right?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212253535

[ElementaryPenguin]

302. Pelosi has made a POLITICAL calculation...

She's allowed that to "trump" what she knows the House needs to be doing. This country can't last a lot longer if this kind of behavior - probably hundreds of impeachable crimes - is tolerated without the threat of impeachment. The precedents being set are catastrophic.

I disagree with both her prioritizing the political over the legal and moral considerations - and I disagree with her belief that impeaching is worse for the Democrats than for Trump.

Evidently, you agree with her.

Respectfully, we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

-Peace

[ehrnst]

303. You still haven't answered the question

What "political calculation" is she making?

You haven't said what that is.

Can you give your source for "probably hundreds of impeachable crimes?" That's a quantifiable statement. Hyperbole doesn't lend one's arguments credibility. Giving one's feelings about something the weight of facts doesn't make them fact based. I do hope that you won't simply run away from replying because I've pointed that out.

I disagree with both her prioritizing the political over the legal and moral considerations - and I disagree with her belief that impeaching is worse for the Democrats than for Trump.

So, based on your statements, I assume that you want her to impeach Clarence Thomas right now, because that is a "legal and moral thing" to do.

Is that correct?

[LanternWaste]

304. Seems Kelly Ann played a lot of people in her musical production of the Major Meow Mashup

Though 'unleashing' and d'brutal' are damned inaccurate, they're a very melodramatic bit of screenwriting that seems to have bamboozled the easily bamboozled, and given a new sense of sensational salivation to little more than a meatless bone.

The exchange of t-shirt slogans and bumper stickers as a replacement for dialog is almost as amusing as watching people fall for Conway's 'look over there!" shtick.