Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Democrats are reportedly desperate to rein in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wild attacks on the Democrat establishment, such as her fury at being denied her new green deal, but at the same time they are terrified of upsetting her.
Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Ocasio-Cortez
The effort is part carrot, part stick. But it’s far from clear the anti-establishment political novice can be made to play ball.
By RACHAEL BADE and HEATHER CAYGLE 01/11/2019 05:03 AM EST
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already making enemies in the House Democratic Caucus — and some of its members are mounting an operation to bring the anti-establishment, democratic socialist with 2.2 million Twitter followers into the fold.
…
Incumbent Democrats are most annoyed by Ocasio-Cortez’s threat to back primary opponents against members of their ranks she deems too moderate. But their frustration goes beyond that: Democratic leaders are upset that she railed against their new set of House rules on Twitter the first week of the new Congress. Rank and file are peeved that there’s a grassroots movement to try to win her a top committee post they feel she doesn’t deserve.
…
It’s an open question whether Ocasio-Cortez can be checked. She’s barely been in Congress a week and is better known than almost any other House member other than Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis. A media throng follows her every move, and she can command a national audience practically at will.
…
Still, fellow Democrats are giving it their best, or planning to in the near future.
So far, most of them have kept their criticism of Ocasio-Cortez private, fearful she’ll sic her massive following on them by firing off a tweet. But a few are engaging with her in the hopes she’ll opt for a different M.O., especially when it comes to trying to take out Democrats in primaries.
…
Ocasio-Cortez is an enigma to most House Democrats. She’s very friendly in person, chatting up fellow lawmakers and security workers in the Capitol as she’s tailed by admirers and reporters.
Then they see the Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, where she frequently snaps at critics and occasionally at fellow Democrats. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that a new climate committee that Ocasio-Cortez championed would not have subpoena power, she retweeted the news and chastised Democratic leadership.
“Our goal is to treat Climate Change like the serious, existential threat it is by drafting an ambitious solution on the scale necessary — aka a Green New Deal — to get it done,” she said. “A weak committee misses the point & endangers people.”
…
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-establisment-1093728
My prediction – Democrats who hoped to ride her popularity to victory will fail to control Ocasio-Cortez.
The 2020 Democrat Presidential challenger will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because in the harsh glare of Ocasio-Cortez’s green left extremism, Democrat moderates will look like sellouts, and will fail to inspire their base.
Correction (EW): Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing. Fixed a typo (h/t Marcus).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just shut down all of the gasoline pipelines like Mexico did by executive decree. The fun starts now.
“None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with YOU. You’re locked up in here with ME.”
(Ocasio-Cortez, after Alan Moore)
happy new year griff, haven’t seen you for a while.
Griff, Happy New Year. Hope you are well, and still finding dubious factoids and other miscellaneous items of interest.
None of these people have raised a spoiled brat? I thought they knew everything!
I wonder why she has not pilgrimed to North Korea nor applied for a permanent residence there.
If you are a reporter, could you please ask her on my behalf ? Thanks in advance.
Oh come on, everyone knows the answer to that one. Socialism hasn’t failed, it has never been tried.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Who said this already, Maduro or Einstein, I’m confused. LOL 😉
NK, China’s Germany…
I am totally in favor of AOC becoming the face of the Democrats. Where do I send my contributions?
We couldn’t have asked for anything better having AOC as the spokesperson for the Left and Climate Change. She will be quickly marginalized in the House with her over-the-top attitude and all her spouting about a “Green New Deal” will turn into tiring rhetoric. I’m sure the Democrats are worried about this monster they created.
“So far, most of them have kept their criticism of Ocasio-Cortez private, fearful she’ll sic her massive following on them by firing off a tweet.”
It sounds like the snake will be eating its own tail.
I think that’s the inevitable result of identity politics. The cobbling together of disparate identity groups only works for so long. At some point intersectionalism exposes conflict between groups, and the expediencies of power take precedence over social justice and morality. For instance, not long ago a gay, black, democrat congressperson complained about the momentum to appoint a muslim as head of the DNC (or some high level position) because that religion tends to be anti-gay. He was basically told to shut up and take a seat in the back of the bus because a courted identity group was involved. And then there’s the hijab-wearing, sharia-loving Linda Sarsour who brought her anti-semitism to the Woman’s March mvmt, and people are now backing away because of that. Eventually, honest people get disillusioned with the double standards and walk away.
But diversity is strength, dude! The more competing identity groups, the stronger we ar!
It would be amusing to watch the Democrats hoist by their own identity petard, if they weren’t doing their best to take the rest of us down with them.
At the end they will find out that there are as many identity groups as there are people. Even identical twins are two different persons.
“Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing.”The last couple under 50s didn’t work out that well. I think we ought to raise the limit to 50.
And put the voting age back to 21.
Joel, I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.
You are forgetting the difficulty of passing an amendment. As the age 18 for voting is in place, change the age for drinking and buying handguns to 18 as well. One is either an adult or not.
David,
Your assertion is Provably False.
We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior to the voting age being lowered in 1971 from 21 to 18.
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
What makes this whole discussion even stranger is that if a 16 year old has a job, he/she has to pay income taxes and payroll taxes. Shouldn’t they be allowed to vote because of this?
Joel, Davids point is simple. Regardless of history, if a person can be drafted to fight and die for his country, he has earned the right to vote in how the country is run. Anything else is manifestly unjust.
I was 18 years old and serving in Vietnam and was not eligible to vote.
The reason the age was lowered to 18 was because all the college kids at the time were freaking out about being drafted for the Vietnam war so they wanted a vote to have a say in the process. If not for the Vietnam war, the voting age would stll probably be 21 years old.
That’s also the reason the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military.
I don’t think the voting age is so much the problem, although 18 should be a minimum. The real problem is the disinformation that floods the environment of young people today from the news media, the entertainment media and the school systems. I think an average 18-year-old could manage to vote in their own self-interests if they were provided the real picture of what is happening in the world, but for the most part, they are not getting that, they are getting a false reality which is created to promote a socialist agenda, and they are getting this message from what traditionally are the information sources people would normally go to and trust.
Even so, not everyone is fooled by the blizzard of falsity that takes place in modern society. There is a blizzard of CAGW alarmism going on and has been for years, yet most people don’t buy it. That should give us some hope for the future. Maybe there are enough right-thinking people out there to keep humanity on the right track.
the 1970 mid-term elections were not that long ago & 18-20 yr olds couldn’t vote then. And your point was about the draft, not slavery. I showed your point about voting and draft under 21 was invalid. And draft registration today has not been extended to include women, so your point trying to connect voting to military draft is still clearly invalid.
Joel O’Bryan January 13, 2019 at 2:56 pm
David,
“Your assertion is Provably False.
We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior to the voting age being lowered in 1971 from 21 to 18.”
Hi Joel , Americans being drafted ,
Revolution -No
War of 1812 -No
Civil war (War between the States) -yes for both sides.
Spanish American War -no
WW1 -yes
WW2 -yes
korea -yes
Vietnam -yes
We started to rely to heavily on the draft without getting the population’s total support.
The lowering of the voting age was a poor reaction to that failure. Instead of banning drafts without a declaration of war the voting age was lowered ” to be fair”.
It helped create this perception that no qualifications should be required for voting.
And yes their should minimal requirements and minor inconveniences. You have to want to vote and make the minor sacrifices to do so.
I am not sure how this will be received
michael
There not their,,,
Michael the Morelock,
The States variously used conscription to fill the ranks during the Revolutionary War. The central (Federal) government was too weak compared to the colonies/states.
The most curious thing is Conscription has been most heavily weighed upon by Democratic Administrations:
WW1: Woodrow Wilson
WW2: FDR
Korea: Truman
Vietnam: Kennedy/LBJ.
Curious.
Sort of like WW2 Internment Camps, deep South Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation. Democrats at the helm.
But yet the funny thing is today, with Feminism all the rage on the Left and demanding equal everything, we see none of them arguing for equal Draft registration.
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
what is irrelevant is your appeal to slavery, as it has nothing to do with the two things being discussed (age of fighting and age of voting). You made an assertion that if voting age is 21 than fighting age *can not* be lower. As such pointing out past precedence where voting age was 21 and fighting age *was* lower is extremely relevant (as it proves your assertion to be false by relevant example). slavery has absolutely nothing to do with it (other than to attack a strawman that does not reflect what Joel was actually saying)
Hi Joel , Americans being drafted ,
Revolution -No
technically there were no “americans” (as we think of citizens of the USA) to draft as The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) ended before the constitution was ratified leading to the formation of the US of A government that we know of today (The constitution was written to go into effect when it was ratified by 9 of the 13 states. , the 9th, New Hampshire, ratified it on June 21, 1788. the government under the U.S. Constitution didn’t begin until the following year on March 4, 1789) Prior to that, we had the articles of confederation in 1777, which established a weak government that operated until 1789, but mainly it was the states that had the power to do any conscription necessary to fight the war (in fact they denied General Washington’s request to have the central government be empowered to conscript) and several states did conscript.
War of 1812 -No
correct. Mainly it was an all-volunteer army at that time. The Madison administration tried unsuccessfully to adopt a national draft (The proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of New Hampshire)
Spanish American War -no
True, but mainly due to how short the war was (May to August 1898) – it ended before many soldiers had even been transported to the war zone.
John Endicott January 14, 2019 at 8:10 am
Hi John, True, the government of the United States was much weaker under the Articles but it was in fact the United States. Congress Negotiated with foreign Governments, entered into treaties and was recognized by foreign governments.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/paris.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Articles-of-Confederation
The last paragraph of the declaration of independence.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled do , in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce the allegiance and subjection to the kinds of Great Britain and all others whe may herafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall herafter have [full] power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
It was not the constitution that created the United States , it was the declaration of Independence
Changes of forms of government do not change a Nation as to being a nation.
Many of the regiments of the United States Army Marched under the first flags of the revolution.
As to the age of the United States soldiers some were as young as 14 and others possibly in their 90s
michael
Mike, as we are talking about the powers of government (IE drafting people to fight for the government) then the significant part is the actual forming of government and our current form of government did not come into existence until 1789 with the constitutionally set forth government that we have enjoyed since. The previous form of government (the 1777-1789 articles of confederation government), while being an interesting footnote, don’t really apply – it’s apples and oranges to talk about the two as if they were one in regards to specifics (like the power to draft) as they were not the same thing. The one did not exist during the Revolutionary War, whereas the other did not exists for all the other wars you listed.
hint: the key part of the post you were replying to is “the formation of the US of A government that we know of today”. We haven’t lived under the articles of confederation government for over 200 years.
And, BTW, a declaration does not a nation or a government make. All the declaration did was declare our independence (IE that we were no longer subject to British rule). It took the articles of confederation (and later the US constitution) to form the government. So yes we declared independence in 1776 (actually we declared the 13 colonies were “free and independent states”), but the government for the “united” states didn’t magically come into existence in that moment. we didn’t have a government until the articles of confederation (1777-1789) and didn’t have the form of government we have today until 1789-present.
Why is there a connection between voting and the obligation to serve?
Children who have income, either earned or through investments, must pay taxes. Children must obey the laws.
Children who live in this country benefit from the government in ways both large (public education) and small (safe streets), on the flip side they must contribute their efforts to the preservation of our country.
Voting, OTOH, is an exercise in judgement. Judgement arises from maturity and experience. We know that the human cerebral cortex does not mature until around 25 years. 18 year olds do not have the requisite maturity or experience.
Walter are you arguing that we should not draft 18 year olds into military service because their cerebral cortex is not mature enough for them to determine if they should fire their weapon at the advancing enemy?
…
Do you realize that 18 year olds can conceive and bring offspring into this world. That requires a heck of a lot more “judgement” than voting. It requires a heck of a lot more “responsibility” also.
…
Don’t be afraid of young people, they are our future. I personally know of a lot of 16 year olds that are much more mature than 25 year olds.
David: There is no draft. If one is needed, I will leave it to the commanders to determine who should be sent into combat.
Do you realize that 18 year olds can conceive and bring offspring into this world. That requires a heck of a lot more “judgement” than voting
Actually, no. Raising that offspring does, but conceiving and giving birth to that offspring? sorry. but no. that can be the result of a drunken one-night stand (not good “judgement” on any participants part) or rape (definitely not good “judgement” on the rapists part, and “judgement” doesn’t even enter into it for the one being raped as they’re not given a choice in the matter) or just plain old unthinking hormones (a young couple “fooling around” and not thinking about the consequences). So once again you spout nonsense.
No David, you are once again strawmanning what others are saying.
If anything militaries like young recruits *because* they are not mentally mature. Far easier to get them to “do as they’re told” than if they are mentally mature enough to question the orders.
We know that the human cerebral cortex does not mature until around 25 years. 18 year olds do not have the requisite maturity or experience.
Not only that, they don’t have the life experience. What does an 18 year old, who still lives with their parents, has never had a full-time job, never had to pay rent or a mortgage, etc know about finance in general let alone taxes in specific. So when candidate promise pie-in-the sky government will take care of everything programs, they don’t understand that the money to pay for those utopian programs has to come from somewhere, they don’t understand what it will mean to their paycheck (they don’t even have yet). They just hear of the positives of such programs that sound good without the experience to understand the negative side of such programs nor how it will really affect them in the pocketbook.
John, that’s exactly why leftists like David like the idea of lowering the voting age.
Bring in more people who’s only desire is to find someone to take care of them and believe that money comes from Mom and Dad, so that they can vote for a government that promises to be an eternal and bottomless mommy and daddy.
Those who are drafted or enlist, get to vote.
Nobody else does.
Joel, I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.
David, the two are not related in law. at all. separate laws cover voting age and service age. A change in the one law does not automatically change the other. so you are talking nonsense (as others have repeatedly pointed out to you) strawmen about slavery (and another separate legal issue) does not alter the fact that you are spouting nonsense.
Neuro-imaging conducted over the past 15 years shows that the human cerebral cortex does not reach full maturity until age 25. (Car rental companies figured this out empirically a while ago) 21 is a compromise between that and the social necessity of getting kids to assume adult roles in society.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
One does not need a mature cerebral cortex to give one’s life in war in service to they country. Do you need a mature cerebral cortex to be a fireman or a policeman?
Obviously one doesn’t need a functioning cerebral cortex to be a liberal.
What about women being drafted? Equal? or not?
I see no Feminists clamoring to register for the Draft.
Yet Federal Law requires males > 18 yo register.
Go Figure.
Make no mistake: I’m not arguing young women should register for the Draft. Just as I think there are combat roles that are generally unfit for women. Yes, I said that. And the military does not exist as an EEO employer. It exists to defend our nation from all threats foreign and domestic with the use of violence. Extreme violence if needed. The female sex usually has many misgivings about the “extreme violence” part. Nature.
no, you do not NEED to have a fully mature cerebral cortex to be a fireman or a policeman, but it would certainly be the preferred alternative.
What is your (rational) point?
DonM, Judging by his posts, I don’t think David does have a rational point. Makes one wonder just how mature his cerebral cortex is 😉
Occasional Cortex is a wrecking ball within the Democrat Party. The wilder her ideas become the more damage that she will do to the Democrat Machine. She may be a secret Republican Agent.
Her win in the Dim-ocrat primary last June against Joe Crowley in their Bronx NY primary stripped the House Democratic Leadership of one of its senior members. Crowley certainly would have had a major committee chair or House Leadership position if he were still there. So there is bright spot there.
There is the charnal reek of millions of dead people wafting off this bug-eyed crazy and I’ve considered her as the most dangerous person in America for some considerable time. She of course just spouts insane, ignorant, emotional gibberish from her My-Little-Pony universe but this is exactly the kind of thing to inspire the ignorant and emotional. She’s trouble.
She’s Big trouble for the Dumb-ocrats trying to maintain their faux image of reasonableness on policy to mainstream middle-class voters.
She’s not dangerous to anyone else.
She may lead to trouble, but only if there is a replacement for her kind of crazy. There is a significant portion of the left followers (not leaners) that will not follow a woman over the edge.
Based on her being female, enhanced by her obvious stupidity, she will not garner the 98% level from that portion of the base.
I remember during the 2008 Dem primary, many old guy Dems around here were in a mild state of crisis over the frontrunners being a black man and a woman. 😮
Yes, when I try to explain just how socially conservatives many on the left are, I run into the usual “where did you see that, on Fox News”?
“No”, I reply, “I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t watch any news. I did belong to a union, though…”
I also grew up working class in rural Canada. Not exactly what you would call a ton of support for progressive causes (other than “for the working man” stuff) but always seemed to elect liberal and social democrats all the time. Makes me wonder if any of the voters actually read the party literature.
Ooh! I seem to remember someone in a similar fix but a few words soon solved the problem. ”Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? ”
She is a very clever girl. Look at how much attention she has gotten here from (mostly) people who have more IQ points in their little fingers than she has in her entire body.
Yes let the young lady speak k out on Climate matters, the more she talks the better for our cause.
Regarding FDR and the 1930 tees. While not quite old enough to have witnessed the start, from what I have read if it had not been for Harry Hopkims and FDR acceptance of his suggestions, the USA could have become either fachism or Communism. Limburg was very pro Hitler and his way of running things.
Later post 1945 Hopkins was accused of being a Commusist, but I don’t agree. He was a good man.
MJE
Michael January 13, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Michael, maybe not in regards to Lindbergh
I have come across several references over the years that Lindbergh was actually a spy for the War department. Here are a couple links.
FDR seemed to think think he was a German sympathizer
michael
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/11/04/Lindberghs-spy-missions-in-Germany/8186468392400/
https://spartacus-educational.com/USAlindbergh.htm
Lindbergh
AOC primaried congressman Crawley and won, mainly because almost nobody took her seriously, but she managed to GOTV (Get Out The Vote). In 2020 I expect a serious attempt to unseat her, with the establishment throwing everything into the effort to restore Crawley.
David Dirkse January 13, 2019 at 3:00 pm
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a new infantile retort, trying to claim that history is irrelevant when it refutes your point, and at the same time use a historical point in constructing a strawman. Thanks for the laugh, even though it is laughing at you and not with you.
Excellent point on David’s creation of a Strawman Argument.
I understood his point as a moral issue of fairness. But until the Vietnam War, the issue of fairness in dying for one’s country thru military service and voting was simply not an issue. If it were, feminists would today be demanding to be subject to the Draft/conscription. And they aren’t, so that tells everyone where their limits of fairness ends.
Joel and Mike, there is no strawman here. Joel makes the statement, “We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior”
…
He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today. I merely pointed out what a stupid argument that is, in light of the fact that 195 years ago it was OK for slavery. I you apply Joel’s logic, since slavery was OK 195 years ago, then it’s OK today.
Argument by analogy is not a “strawman”
This is as weak as your asserting the use of history to refute you is irrelevant. You can claim anything you want in order to salvage yourself, but you are only fooling you, but it was a lovely touch on your part to pervert logic. The fact remains you got your head handed to you with a fact and instead of bowing out gracefully, you continue to claw and fight like a small child, and that might be giving you too much credit.
A swing and a miss Mike H, strike one.
The umps blind.
David,
You and you alone bring in the slavery argument. Why stop at 195 years with slavery. Slavery probably goes back to the dawn of hamn’s recorded history in Mesopotamia. Slaves are in the Old Testament.
But it is only You that brings them up in here to try and cover-up for your intellectual shortcomings regarding voting and the Draft.
As you try and assert that I said that (or implied that) slavery of the past is part of this discussion, you are creating a Strawman to tear down. Yes, a text book example of a Strawman Argument – A logical fallacy.
Just becasue you want to believe in your mind the analogy was one I made, that is your cognitive dissonance-induced delusion…. not mine.
David, you are suffering from severe Cognitive Dissonance that is causing you to hallucinate I said something I did not.
Joel O’Bryan
David, your strawman start with “He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago”. No he did not. Nowhere does he make an assertion about it’s OKness or not OKness. OK doesn’t enter into it anywhere. As that strawman is the premise that you built your “analogy” off of, that means your analogy is set up to defeat a starwman and has nothing to do with anything that was actually stated by Joel. As such, it’s just more nonsense from you.
Simple question David: when the voting age was 21 in the 1960s what was the fighting age? was it 21 or was it 18? The answer. as most people aware of history know, is 18. That alone proves your statement that if the voting age is 21 “you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service” as we have historic proof that you can have a voting age of 21 and a fighting age of 18 contrary to your assertion that it cannot be that way. No strawmen claiming slavery to be OK will change the simple historical fact that you were wrong.
Should have read:
That alone proves your statement that if the voting age is 21 “you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service” is false as we have…
where is that edit button when you need it LOL.
The fact remains you got your head handed to you with a fact and instead of bowing out gracefully, you continue to claw and fight like a small child, and that might be giving you too much credit.
Not to mention being insulting to small children.
Oh, and what makes the analogy even stronger is that in both slavery and voting, Constitutional amendments are involved.
David,
You made the false assertion, “but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.”
If you had said “should not” instead of cannot, I would have let it go.
Your “cannot” and “nor can you permit”, are clearly false. Provably false.
You have confused “can” with “should”.
One the is a fairness argument (should), the other (can) is a legal/constitutional argument. Clearly our laws and constitution allows conscription of 18 year olds for military service, while the voting age can be anything else under the same constitution.
The law is often not fair, despite popular misconceptions.
+42, spot on Joel.
And David, no he did not make “the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today”. He said nothing about it being OK or not therefore you are attacking something he wasn’t saying (that is known as a strawman). He merely pointed out that 18 year olds were fighting during that time period whereas the voting age was different (and thus unrelated to fighting age) during that same time period. So your bringing slavery into it is totally **IRRELVANT** because, like fighting age, slavery has nothing to do with what the legal age to vote is per the law. Those are 3 separate and unrelated laws.
He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today. I merely pointed out what a stupid argument that is
It is a stupid argument, good thing then that it is not an argument he was making. It’s an argument you created (IE a strawman argument) in order to attack what he did say – which was to point out the historical *FACT* that voting age and fighting age have been different for the majority of this countries history, as such your statement that they cannot be different (“I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.”) is *FALSE*.
“…Ocasio-Cortez is an enigma to most House Democrats. She’s very friendly in person, chatting up fellow lawmakers and security workers in the Capitol as she’s tailed by admirers and reporters…”
How clueless is this writer? Democrats and Repubs are “friendly in person” to each other as well. They have their wars in social media and to the press.
Alan Tomalty
@ATomalty
1h1 hour ago
Alan Tomalty Retweeted Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
Are you a Communist?
Alan Tomalty added,
Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
@Alexocasocortez
Replying to @KDogg2point0 @SteveSGoddard @TheDemocrats
Correct, I say stupid things that I do not actually believe, you say things you actually believe that are stupid.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
@Alexocasocortez
Replying to @ATomalty
Not even close, I am a Democratic Socialist!
2:54 PM – 13 Jan 2019
Alan Tomalty
@ATomalty
1h1 hour ago
Alan Tomalty Retweeted Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
Socialism is impossible. 100% socialism leads to Communism and dictatorship. If you aren’t in agreement with 100% socialism, then where do you draw the line?
She did not respond.
I then tweeted Tony Heller with the following comment.
I asked OcasioCortez if she was a Communist. She said :Democratic Socialist. I said 100% socialism always leads to Communism and dictatorship and asked where did she draw the line? She did not respond. Socialists never draw the line. They really are Communists.
What is a democratic socialist? That has to be an oxymoron like social justice.
democratic = foot in the door.
socialist = once the door is jammed and the way is clear…
What is a democratic socialist?
It’s democratic in name only. It pays lip service to democracy but only allows votes for their socialist agenda. If you dare speak out against, then you are a -ist or -phobe of one sort or another and thus must be marginalized and silenced.
Soft socialist establishment getting some hard left pumping.
Always vote for the hard left; it’s the smartest thing a conservatives can do in this era.
Remember pick the worst socialist in your district and vote for them at every opportunity.
Once you release the commie kracken you never knew who it’ll attack.
Her attacks will hurt the leftist party since they WANT to be the ones pulling the strings, including her.
Like most young liberals, she is absolutely convinced of both her own righteousness and her own infallibility.
She won’t be controlled. She’s on a mission to save the world.
She’s going to be seriously ugly if she reaches Pelosi’s age.
What she is doing is based on ignorance and hype. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work with models one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is not real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty scientific rationale to support the idea that climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. What we really need to be doing is strengthening our economy and that includes lowering our debt so that we are a better state to solve future problems. Some of these socialist schemes my sound good at first but history has shown that they just do not work. We should be emphasizing what works and what does not work. Rededicating our entire economy to lowering CO2 emissions will make us all poorer yet it will have no beneficial effects in terms of a better climate what ever that is and fewer extreme weather events. We do not even know what the ideal climate is let along how to achieve it. We have been unable to avoid one extreme climate event let alone change global climate. For example, where I live we are expecting rain tomorrow and there is nothing that I can do within my power to stop it. The best I can do is deal with it and just stay inside as much as I can. Making major changes to our economy is not going to help anyone.
The real question you have is whether she debates through reason or appeals to emotion.
You will get nowhere analysing facts if she is preaching to climate flat earthers.
You need to get ascerbic, irritable and loud:
‘I’ve heard all your rabble-rousing pile of crap, now show me you know the first thing about science before I kick your arse into the Hall of Fame for Ignorant Half Wits!’
When you have got the audience engaged through verbal pugilism, now you go for the scientific right hook and blitz her with three undeniable reasons why her IPCC ranting is a waste of money, will achieve nothing and panders to corrupt Big Green lobbyists.
You want to get into the ring with a brawler, you need to school her like Muhammed Ali would have….
What she is doing is based on ignorance and hype.
You’ve heard the expression “facts don’t care about your feelings”, with AOC it’s “your facts don’t matter to her feelings”. To her (as she said in a 60 minutes interview) being factual correct is a irrelevancy, what matter to her is being “morally right”. Of course, what is “morally right” to her is what she feels is “morally right” regardless of how factually horrible the end results will actually be.
Agreed, except for one thing
“We have been unable to avoid one extreme climate event…” – there are NO “climate events.” You are allowing the propaganda to seep in. The “events” are WEATHER, not “climate.”
Why not let her institute her ideas in her constituency, and show how well it works?
Only EVs allowed, no fossil fuel electricity generation, just windmills and solar panels.
“US fully renewable energy in 12 years”
Cortez is an illiterate clown
Not if you see wood as a renewable energy source. The only problem is that you would eliminate your forest in less than 10 years.
Maybe Occasional Cortex has Australia’s Krudd and Gillard as her advisors? That would explain a lot.