Note I am not telling you what I "feel." Feeling is an emotion. What I have said about the repeated use of "bad faith" falls under the category of considered judgment. It is my considered judgment that you overuse the expression "bad faith," to ill effect.
I'll take your judgement into consideration and diversify my language and use more synonyms for "bad faith".
Yes it's a very well known one meant to support the Arts. And? It ain't the most noble of causes but this is the first time I've heard criticism of a politician attending it when many have before.
It is less that there is a politician attending a charity event and more that a socialist (by membership in the DSA, if not by action) attending one of the most exclusive and pricey events in the city, which while for charity is better known as a fancy party for rich people, all the while wearing a tax the rich dress that probably cost thousands of dollars and using a $35,000 ticket is just terrible optics. She is the personification of champagne socialist in that moment. It is easy fodder for those who oppose her. Just like Gavin Newsom and the dinner with lobbyists at the French Laundry while he instituted a statewide lockdown. Also like that, it will have no consequences and change no one's mind. It is red meat for those whose entertainment is political outrage.
So she's advocating to increase taxes for people who attend the gala? I'm trying to find the hypocrisy here unless you are trying to beat up a strawman of her views that she's against people trying to amass wealth rather than just being fairly taxed. We can disagree on what "fair" is but it is a strawman to think she is against people trying to accrue wealth. Accrue wealth, but close loopholes, properly fund the IRS so the wealthy are properly audited, restructure capital gains tax, reform the revolving door, reform campaign finance,l and create a single payer health care system. So I'm trying to find the hypocrisy let alone the ethic violation.
You should perhaps take your own advice here Huh, it's just another check mark in her badassery column for me.
not aware that I gave any advice here: that's not really advice. that's a set of descriptive statements. what @fchowd0311 does with his posts is his business. I work with lots of people who like to hear themselves talk
I have no problems with her and how she does things. My issue is really about policy and her class warfare rhetoric. Taxing the rich shouldn't be the end goal. You should try to achieve something and if taxing the rich is needed to get there, then that is fine. But taxing the rich shouldn't be the policy in itself. I like her more than most Republicans but I wouldn't vote for her unless the person she was running against is Trump, McCarthy, Turtle or Palin.
Oh buddy class welfare is just going to be a more prevalent entity in this nation as time moves forward due to unsustainable economic trends. It's a natural reaction. Do you might want to get used to it.
I didn't say hypocrisy, since you are so concerned about people beating up straw men. I said it was bad optics. Since it trended and there were multiple articles and dozens or hundreds of tweets about it, all aimed at making fun of her for it, fed to a particular audience that laps it up, it certainly seems like both that it was bad optics and that it was served up as red meat to those for whom this brand of politics is entertainment, and that she is a socialist at a party where the champagne is flowing like water (the claims I actually made). I think it is a non-issue. Just like Newsom at the French Laundry. Just like Melania's jacket. None of it means anything, it is something to drive clicks and views. I don't like her policies, but that wouldn't change if she turned down the invite to the Met Gala.
"Bad optics" usually means "hypocritical". That goes for Newsom also who was actually hypocritical. "do as I say, not as I do". So ya, I'm not misrepresenting here.
No, bad optics mean it looks bad. Being hypocritical can be bad optics, but it isn't a requirement. Like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Arnold Schwarzenegger commuting the sentence of Esteban Nunez a friend and political ally's child was bad optics, but not hypocrisy. Trump tweeting to the Jan. 6 rioters that they were special and he loved them, before telling them to go home was bad optics, but not hypocrisy. Bad optics just means it creates or has the strong potential to create bad press.
This sounds fair to me. Though it also means that every public action Ocasio-Cortez takes can be viewed as "bad optics", because it will inevitably be covered negatively by a certain segment of the press.
In this case it's bad optics in your perception because of perceived hypocrisy that I explained doesn't exist if you don't misrepresent her views. You think it's hypocritical because she's whining and dining with the ultra wealthy while also believing she thinks wealth accumulation is evil because "socialist" therefore it's hypocritical for her to be socializing and having a good time with the ultra wealthy who accumulate wealth
She’s getting publicity There’s no such thing as bad publicity It helps the ratings If nobody talked about her , she’d be the 2020 Rockets
I've never seen Os make so many posts without injecting a loosely related libertarian blog link I'm impressed, what does he get out of you that I can't