The equivalent of someone on the left of Trump would be...there is no one that could be equivalent. It's way too early in her career to make any kind of comparison of her with anyone, but her tendency to speak in gross exaggerations is somewhat alarming. The thing about democrats is that it's not nearly as homogenous as the Republican party. A BIG chunk of dems are fact based thinkers and you can't gain too much power spewing BS. You might be able to win a house seat but going further will be a challenge for her.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...io-cortez-reveals-jewish-ancestry/2275410002/ Is it a coincidence that Cortez looks like the happy merchant meme? Bezos has some splainin' to do. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/happy-merchant Spoiler
I think you are being charitable, especially when you consider the stories that don't get written about things that affect Bezos' fortune.Self-cenorship is real. Do you think anyone at WaPo wants to harm their career by writing anything derogatory about their boss or his business parters?
Not going to hurt her. In fact making claims of her pandering will only help her popularity. She is made to handle this type of discourse/attacks. Simply stated she isn't Elizabeth Warren. AOC is a populist, and has a lot of the same tactics that Trump has.
It is in no ones best interest in the business, government or journalism field to cross Bezos. He can crush and destroy anyone with ease. His finances and concentration of power is formidable. It seems that journalists can "poke" a little about the conditions at Amazon or the issues..... without much reprisal but there is a reason that little coverage has gone beyond that. Bezos is in his mid 50's and is worth almost a quarter trillion dollars. Career suicide to cross him.
It won't hurt her in the short term, no, but if she continues to look like a simpleton time and time again, she'll be a one term congresswoman. She was elected largely because only the fringe in her district showed up to vote in the primary in one of the bluest of districts. She's absolutely going to face a primary challenge when seeking re-election and if a more sane Democrat runs and can convince the district to show up to vote in the primary, she's probably done for one way or the other.
I really don't think so. The only way I see her going away in a sharp turn away from extremist politics or a pretty serious criminal investigation. Otherwise she is gets constant national coverage, she is able to manipulate the media like Trump and as a populist draws a strong core of devoted followers. The issue will be if/when she tries to run for a larger office. If the country remains as extreme as it is now, it won't be a problem. However if the country is repelled by extremists like AOC and Trump, then she may no longer be palatable.
I think you overestimate her support. Sure the fringe left loves her, but I think pretty much everyone in the mainstream views her as an embarrassment. People like her is exactly what Trump needs to win re-election. I just don't think there are that many socialists out there despite how far the left has moved left in recent years. I think there are enough sane Democrats to reject her now that they've seen more of her. Also, you do realize that Trump isn't actually an extremist right? He's a life-long Democrat who simply stayed where the bulk of Democrats were in the 80's and 90's. The business Democrats that existed back then may be nearly an extinct species now, but that's really all he is. Some of his rhetoric is harsh and intentionally over the top, but the actual stuff he's pushing for isn't really extreme with the exception of how he's trying to leverage countries into re-negotiating trade deals. Some of that is extreme, but that's merely the methods, not the end goals. If JFK was running for office today, you'd likely call him an extremist too.
I don't think think there are a lot of socialists out there, but there are quite a few people (especially under 40) that do not see socialism at the evil that older generations do. They look at Scandinavian country and also have a very poor opinion of corporations and the system as a whole. Those people will vote for her, as will a number of minorities, women and a great deal of democrats. I don't think she will have a hard time keeping her current position at all. Your points may hold true if she runs for a state wide office, although demographics are changing as well. As far as Trump is concerned, his is a political extremist. The way he conducts himself and makes decisions and views government is to the extreme. His policy positions are all over the place, and he is a populist. His views on the powers of the Presidency, etc are certainly to the extreme. Trump's behavior and positions would not be tolerated in a different political environment (the same goes for AOC).
taken as a whole, ACO's foible, such as it has been, is pretty tame, when you factor in this Congressman Steve King asking the Google CEO “I have a 7-year-old granddaughter who picked up her iphone playing a little game, and up pops a picture of her grandfather accompanied w obscenities, how does that show up on a 7-year-old’s iPhone that’s playing a kid’s game?”Google CEO's reply “Congressman, iPhone is actually made be a different company,”
That's true, there are an increasing number of people who don't know what socialism is and that's why they foolishly think that Scandinavian countries are an example of it. Hopefully our education system improves so that kind of confusion can be avoided in future generations. They'll have to work past systemic political bias that wishes to continue feeding children that kind of misinformation, but I have to hope for the best. I also, hope that foolish children aren't the majority even in that district. While they are a VERY blue district, I would imagine the majority there would prefer a candidate who wasn't a constant embarrassment. I feel like a credible challenger beats her pretty easy. They'll still be a left wing politician, they just won't be clown shoes. I noticed that you didn't point to any "extreme" policy stance, you just complained about his rhetoric or what you think is in his head in the abstract, it wasn't much more in depth than just saying "orange man bad". Funny how that always seems to be the case. I mean, even I pointed to something he actually does that is extreme but you didn't seem to be able to. I think that's indicative of you talking about what the narrative is and realizing you can't actually back those claims up with anything substantive, but we probably shouldn't go off on a tangent in this thread.
for what it's worth, an essay on "The Myth of Scandanavian Socialism," citing among other things the Danish PM's recent response to the claim that Denmark has a socialist form of govt. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-o...MIvq-lguKa3wIViZ-zCh1COwF0EAAYASAAEgL_LvD_BwE https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
It's frustrating to watch this -- both Democrats and Republicans think Google engineers are purposely ranking negative content about them higher. Besides not understanding the way technology or the Internet works, there is also the Streisand effect, that every time they do this, more content is being created, just like this exchange, which will be ranked in the first page in a few days when someone googles Steve King. This was my favorite part:
I wasn't talking about his political positions...... I was talking about how he has handled the Presidency and how he views the limits and powers of the office, which are certainly to the extreme. If you want to start a thread on Donald Trump and his political positions feel free to do so.
People cannot even agree on what the term "socialism" means in a practical sense. I find the use of the term to be counter progressive for both sides of the political spectrum.
I agree with you, but the problem is even worse in AOC's hands, where she has managed to weaponize the term. She'd be better off dropping it imho
That is a big part of her appeal. It is controversial and she is polarizing but it is working for her quite well. I view her as I view Trump or any other populist, keep them at a distance.
The only reason for that is that socialists have been trying to spin what socialism means in order to associate it with something successful (usually the capitalist system used in Scandinavia) because the entire history of actual socialism is nothing but poverty, corruption, starvation, and mass murder.
Okay? I am not defending socialism anymore than I am defending fascism. All I did was point out the basis for her appeal and the general neutering of the term "socialism" or "democratic-socialism". If I live somewhere and a marxist/socialist or a conservative/fascist takes power, I have a pretty good idea of where it is going to end up....... and that is with bones scattered everywhere.
I would take exception with you seemingly equating a Marxist with a "conservative", but I don't think you intended to do that, so I don't disagree with the spirit of what you were saying, the rise of fascism or Marxism would certainly lead to "bones scattered everywhere" Also, I wasn't trying to accuse you of defending socialism, I was speaking about those who do so not accusing you of being one of them. I agree with you that destroying the meaning of words is dangerous, and would suggest that's part of the plan by the neo-Marxist types....the "Democratic Socialists of America" would certainly qualify.
