Ocasio-Cortez refuses invite to debate, compares offer to catcalling

Big Chief

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/09/ben-shapiro-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-spar-after-offers-10000-to-debate-her-democratic-socialist-beliefs.html

Also a black conservative woman offered $$$ to charity for her to debate..................

So this idealistic young lady needs to get her ducks in line if she wants to be taken seriously by anyone who wants to hear why she thinks her socialist politics are better than capitalism, not dodge the tough questions by name calling her challengers.  

Big Chief

She is young and very misguided/misinformed. She sees sugarplums and not sour grapes in her vision of Candy-land socialism Utopia she thinks is real.  

Make_My_Day

Wambli Ska said:

Just saw a video where she could not articulate an answer on who Nancy Pelose was.  But, maybe that’s a good thing?

She can't give a coherent answer on anything.

Fisheadgib

Make_My_Day said:

Wambli Ska said:

Just saw a video where she could not articulate an answer on who Nancy Pelose was.  But, maybe that’s a good thing?

She can't give a coherent answer on anything.

Sadly, she's the epitome of today's entitled millennials. She got a free ride to Boston University where she has a bachelor's in economics and international relations and yet she dislays ZERO knowledge or education in either of those areas.

bisley

The DNC never wanted her to win - they just wanted to frighten the incumbent further to the left. He didn't take her seriously, and lost. Now they have to put her through a hurry-up tutoring program and hope she can memorize the dogma and learn the straw-man / bait and switch protocols that all Democrats live or die by. Any district that would elect her will likely never elect a Republican, unless no Democrats show up to vote, so once she is in office they can force her out, if necessary, and get a more manageable puppet to replace her.

Teach

When you choose to swim with the sharks, it's not a good idea when the only stroke you know is the dog paddle!  I predict that she's going to be the entree' at a politician feeding frenzy!

Big Chief

Most of us got over having our heads in the clouds and being that idealistic about how the world should be (not as it is in reality) before we were 18, she is over 10 years late.

I'm afraid she is in for a rude awakening when she hits DC .............and reality sets in, in that dog eat dog environment. I give her credit for winning over her opponent who must have been sitting back on his laurels.

tennmike

She, and those like her, remind me all too well of the movie "Idiocracy". People so dumb that the simplest problem and its simple solution totally escape their neuron starved intellects.

Jayhawker

The woman is dumber than a bag of hammers...

tennmike

The mouth of a jellyfish is also its anus. She has that in common with the jellyfish in that, when she opens her mouth 'stuff' spews out of it.

earlyagain

The only time I hear anything about this woman is when there's a thread created here.

I didn't even remember her from the last thread until I opened the link.

CaliFFL

I read recently she endorsed 5 politicians for various primaries. Not one was successful. 

tennmike

The DNC isn't running from her rhetoric, and some of the DNC leaders are embracing that hard Left Socialist message. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have pretty much embraced her and Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman representing Chicago, is all for her. The Democrats are 'out of the closet' on their socialist agenda. They push that mess hard and the Democratic Party will implode.

Make_My_Day

tennmike said:

The DNC isn't running from her rhetoric, and some of the DNC leaders are embracing that hard Left Socialist message. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have pretty much embraced her and Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman representing Chicago, is all for her. The Democrats are 'out of the closet' on their socialist agenda. They push that mess hard and the Democratic Party will implode.

The majority of democraps are "Progressives." That is just another word for Socialist.  This is the philosophy being spewed in K-12 and the university system. If this systematic brainwashing is not reversed, I don't think our current system can last much longer.

tennmike

I wish I saved videos that come along from time to time. There was one that I found hilarious from about 10 years ago that still makes me giggle when I think about it. It was one of the LGBT parades and some folks marching were wearing Che T-shirts. Someone on the sidelines started a chant and people all along the route picked it up. The chant was, "Che! Che! He slaughtered gays!" The people wearing them had that priceless look on their faces, sort of like deer in the headlights.

sgtrock21

Wambli Ska said:

Just saw a video where she could not articulate an answer on who Nancy Pelosi was.  But, maybe that’s a good thing?

I suspect there are times Nancy Pelosi could not answer that question!

tennmike

How well Nancy Pelosi functions seems to have a lot to do with how her drugs are working, or not.

bisley

The best thing that could possibly happen to this country, with regard to the future of politics, would be for this all to become a public debate of socialism versus capitalism, while working people still hold a slim majority, in the US.

The Democrat Party has avoided such a debate like it was the plague, for decades. All the while, they have altered history, dumbed down the education system in general, and imported millions of uneducated immigrants in an effort to create an artificial constituency that will favor their spoon-fed idea of what socialism actually is. They are still hesitant to make the final push, because keeping their coalition of all these minorities on the reservation for long enough to win an election is like herding cats. They are still not certain that their bewildering narrative can be sold to all of them and held together for long enough to win the vote. If the middle class turns out in big numbers, they lose.

I suspect that the clearer heads in the DNC believe they need another two years to sink Trump, blackmail the RINOS, and get a few million more immigrants with third grade educations onto the voting rosters.

Jermanator

I don't necessarily see the ultimate plan for Democrats as warming up to socialism. Remember that like Republicans, they need to serve their corporate masters. How else are they going to land those lucrative speaking fees, consulting commissions, and plum jobs after leaving government? Besides, they have relatives that need jobs too. It is hard to get on that gravy train when the government takes control of the means of production in a society.

Look at what happened during the 8 years of Obama and especially when they had the House and Senate? It wasn't socialism-- it was giant handouts to their corporate masters. Cash for Cars? Obamacare? Dodd/Frank? Shovel Ready? That isn't socialism. It is crony capitalism. I think that ultimately, people like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are a flash in the pan. I think that the populists of the left (as opposed to the populists of the right that seem to be getting all the attention right now) are going to burn themselves out sooner rather than later.

earlyagain

They can't run for office without the same bankroll from the same place Republicans get.

The deciding debate will continue around social issues unless severe austerity becomes prevalent.

bisley

I think severe austerity is about three years away from the day that business loses confidence that the government will leave them alone with regulations and policies that will put their backs to the wall, again. Congress is too split up to firm up any sort of guarantees of that, so the next Democrat government will be able to put the economy back on the skids within their first year, and naturally, blame it on Trump. The Republicans, barring a purge of the establishment types, will probably sit on their asses and let it happen, rather than try to swim upstream.

tennmike

I think the last populist Democrat president was John F. Kennedy. All other Democrats after him were tax and spend and stick it to 'big business' types that needed the extra money for the expanding government into areas it had no business, social programs, and to buy votes 'by other means'. Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama fit that bill.

earlyagain

The news I hear seems to be different that the news others on here are getting.

Quarterly profits with more than six zeros are a long way from having backs against the wall. When a corporation can buy and sell politicians with pocket change and my neighbors hold three jobs to get 40 hours work with no benefits, the wall is lined with people we diagree about.

Jeeper

tennmike said:

The DNC isn't running from her rhetoric, and some of the DNC leaders are embracing that hard Left Socialist message. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have pretty much embraced her and Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman representing Chicago, is all for her. The Democrats are 'out of the closet' on their socialist agenda. They push that mess hard and the Democratic Party will implode.

I agree that they are out of the closet, but like Make My Day mentions above, I'm not at all sure they're going to implode.  They have owned the educational system for 40+ years, and IMO are nearing the critical level needed to push us over the edge.   

Just consider the fact that Hillary *NEARLY* won.  ****?  How is it even possible that a woman THAT corrupt, with THAT  many skeletons in her closet, could come that close?  

Recovering the educational system from it's current state of affairs should be among our highest prioritys.

Luis

bisley

The DNC is not against socialism - they are just against admitting that they are socialistic. Declaring that you are a socialist forces you to own the depressing parts of it, which is that everybody gets a dwindling piece of the pie, as the millionaires and the middle class starts to disappear, and the government becomes more authoritarian, in order to manage the scarcities that they have induced into the economy.

Jermanator

Since this is from the Washington Post, I am sure many of you will dismiss this as fake news, but here it goes...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/?utm_term=.9a2a6d80967e

bisley

OK, I read it, and didn't see anything new from what was on Fox News, immediately after she made each statement.The Post even admits that they didn't do the research, but borrowed it from FactCheck.org. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many other news outlets used the same source - maybe even Fox.

Do you believe it now, because the Washington Post has reported it, or was there another point somewhere that I missed?

I actually read into the whole article that it doesn't really matter, since she will probably win, anyway. I would contend that it does matter, because Ocasio-Cortez was campaigning for other Democrats when she made the errors, all of whom lost their elections. Further, I would contend that most of the people who listened to her for more than a minute probably believed her, and rejected the criticisms of her, blaming Fox News. The Post doesn't defend her because most of what she says is indefensible, and nobody is quite sure whether she is helping or hurting the leftist agenda.

Ocasio-Cortez creates controversies that a center-left news organization can use to get their ticket punched, on the 'balance scale' of left-right bias. Fox News does similar stories on Trump, because his rhetoric often contains similar errors. The difference is that he has a record that allows his supporters to overlook the 'over-the-top' rhetoric, to some extent.

earlyagain

The article mentions the phrase media blitz. The regular non-cable news here as well as NPR have not carried it, at least during my somewhat limited access.
I see no media blitz whatsoever. I see no dreaded socialist conspiracy metastasizing from a party bankrolled by corporate lobby.

sgtrock21

tennmike said:

I think the last populist Democrat president was John F. Kennedy. All other Democrats after him were tax and spend and stick it to 'big business' types that needed the extra money for the expanding government into areas it had no business, social programs, and to buy votes 'by other means'. Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama fit that bill.

"Tax and spend" has been obsolete for many years. It was changed to "Spend then tax".

Jermanator

bisley said:

OK, I read it, and didn't see anything new from what was on Fox News, immediately after she made each statement.The Post even admits that they didn't do the research, but borrowed it from FactCheck.org. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many other news outlets used the same source - maybe even Fox.

Do you believe it now, because the Washington Post has reported it, or was there another point somewhere that I missed?

No. I was just wondering if people believe them when they are critical of a liberal since nobody seems to find them credible when it concerns a conservative. Then it becomes "fake news". I am trying to draw attention to what I perceive as a double standard.

bisley

All of the news channels, except maybe CNN and MSNBC, do a few selected 'objective' stories that mildly criticize the people they are always accused of protecting, including Fox News. It gives them a little cover when somebody tries to do an expose of biased media, and doesn't really harm the people they support. This is what I was referring to in my previous post about getting their 'tickets punched' for their left/right objectivity.

I still contend that Fox does a decent job on 'straight news' programs, and that they are much clearer on their delineation between news and commentary. It would be much more obvious if Democrats would accept their invitations to come on, but only the most ridiculous of their hired guns will appear on any Fox News program, and simply try to run out the clock with talking points.

In the current era of 'yellow journalism,' objective sources are hard to find, and many important facts go unreported for months, especially on the center-left and hard left media news. Genuine journalists, of which there are very few, cannot get an audience.