Why do conservatives hate AOC?

[DT]

Charlie: They said you was hung.
Bart: And they was right.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

We used to have long conversations with Jay about AOC in MR PRSI.

I am not conservative nor am I a Republican.

I am not fond of her.

She might be a colour shade on the US political palette but nothing more in my eyes.

 

[User.45]

Yep, any variation of:

• Healthcare for all
• Everyone should eat
• Equality for black people, LGBTQ or Women
• Rich paying their fair share

Will be deemed as "stupid" by Republicans.

This has been a thing I noticed. Some people think that these things are stupid, therefore she is stupid.

 

[SuperMatt]

We used to have long conversations with Jay about AOC in MR PRSI.

I am not conservative nor am I a Republican.

I am not fond of her.

She might be a colour shade on the US political palette but nothing more in my eyes.

I know a few other people that feel the same way as you. She can be a polarizing figure.

However, like her or not. she is far from stupid.

 

[User.45]

I know a few other people that feel the same way as you. She can be a polarizing figure.

However, like her or not. she is far from stupid.

She's a little too left for my taste and not very diplomatic for a politician, but that's kind of a virtue and I like her straight shooting.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

She is far from being stupid if she was able to rise to a position she is in atm.

None of us here was able to complete this task.

 

[Herdfan]

I know a few other people that feel the same way as you. She can be a polarizing figure.

However, like her or not. she is far from stupid.

Would you agree though she can say some really stupid things?

 

[User.45]

Would you agree though she can say some really stupid things?

Still awaiting concrete examples instead of hyperbole.

 

[Herdfan]

She is far from being stupid if she was able to rise to a position she is in atm.

None of us here was able to complete this task.

I have to give her credit for being able to use SM to promote herself during her primary with Crowley. Plus she hit the streets and put in the face time with the voters. Can't deny that.

Reminds me of a guy I went to college with. When he said he was going to run for Mayor, no one believed him. When he registered to run and said he was going to win, no one believed him. No one knew who he was until the votes came in. He did the same thing AOC did, he knocked on doors and talked to people. Completely under the radar and it worked.

 

[DT]

Reminds me of a guy I went to college with.

Well, that just invalidated your whole argument, umm, I guess unless you mean this:

 

[Herdfan]

Still awaiting concrete examples instead of hyperbole.

1) It's more important to be morally right than factually correct.
2) We could save $21T a year by keeping a tighter control on the pentagon budget
3)Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs

Here is a start with links to verify each one and not a single Fox, Breitbart, NewMax or OAN source.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Would you agree though she can say some really stupid things?

I think what some are asking of you though, is the specific instances you are referring to as her saying "stupid things". In many cases she can back up what she's said with some facts & stats. Meanwhile her counterparts on the right often say "stupid things", but get called out by everyone but those who line up politically with them.

Case in point
https://www.Twitter or X not allowed/i/web/status/1414316638242054148/

Classy. Great way to minimize the death of over a half million lost American lives & use it as a stump bit at CPAC.

Boebert like Greene tend to trend on Twitter for actually saying "stupid things", but that is their intention. They say those things for attention, to grab headlines, and in Greene's case for fund raising. The "stupid things" you imagine AOC says, at least come from a place she believes will help people. It maybe naive, but I personally prefer where AOC is coming from when she says the things she does. Those "stupid things" she says aren't things that will infuriate or annoy most, but those who need or want to be critical of her.

 

[thekev]

Would you agree though she can say some really stupid things?

Take a look at her general tone. She tends to give normal responses in plain English, that do not tend to leverage shared sentiment. Even if you can find a small number of wacky examples (and I don't think that's a given), it would not change the general demeanor she sets forth.

She is far from being stupid if she was able to rise to a position she is in atm.

None of us here was able to complete this task.

It's entirely possible that none of us have run for office.

(Note: I just wanted to reference The Office.)

 

[DT]

Take a look at her general tone. She tends to give normal responses in plain English, that do not tend to leverage shared sentiment. Even if you can find a small number of wacky examples (and I don't think that's a given), it would not change the general demeanor she sets forth.

This is a pretty brilliant assessment of some her communications. They're not "stupid", as that suggests poor intuitiveness, introspection, I think they're a touch inexperienced (in the context of "the game") because some of her HERF DERF SHE SAID, comments, when distilled down to the core concept are still pretty fucking smart, and several orders-of-magnitude beyond anything Greene or Boebert have managed to crap out of their face orifice (they are spectacularly stupid).

 

[User.45]

1) It's more important to be morally right than factually correct.
2) We could save $21T a year by keeping a tighter control on the pentagon budget
3)Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs

Here is a start with links to verify each one and not a single Fox, Breitbart, NewMax or OAN source.

Thanks, now we have actual stuff to talk about.
1) She is absolutely correct about the moral issues of increasing military spending while early educational spending is remains subpar (which is a much better investment than most anything else). This is actually a national security issue, see how vulnerable Americans are to blatant disinformation.
2) She's definitely wrong on the scale but not the issue: there are ginormous sums of unaccounted tax-payer money poured into the military industrial complex
3) The analysis seems fair here, it's a stupid statement, but again the basic premise is major growth in inequalities and trumped up economical numbers. Just remember what happened in the first few weeks of the COVID lockdown...Companies that were bailed out and ended up spending billions on stock buybacks that benefited CEOs and shareholders disproportionately while these companies remained vulnerable and needed another bail out. This isn't how capitalism supposed to work...

Now let's do two things:
1) Let's take into context that she has 12.7K tweets on Twitter, so even if we are generous, these fact-checked tweets cover <0.5% of her activity.
2) Let's define stupid in your books and then let's apply that scale to AOC's peers.

 

[User.45]

This is a pretty brilliant assessment of some her communications. They're not "stupid", as that suggests poor intuitiveness, introspection, I think they're a touch inexperienced (in the context of "the game") because some of her HERF DERF SHE SAID, comments, when distilled down to the core concept are still pretty fucking smart, and several orders-of-magnitude beyond anything Greene or Boebert have managed to crap out of their face orifice (they are spectacularly stupid).

But Boebert or Greene or even Trump are very very very low bars. I'd put Rand Paul there whom for some reason isn't called the idiot he actually is on a regular basis.

 

[lizkat]

Beauty is at least partly in the eye of the beholder and often in the eye of the (partisan, sure) Tweet producer.

But I'll take no-context partisan clips of AOC saying "stupid things" any day over equivalent (also partisan) clips of the prattlings of the likes of Ronny Jackson, former WH physician (now a member of the House from Texas), and assiduously touting the messages du jour of the Trump wing of the GOP. His stuff is riddled with stereotypes and bumperstick "ideas". The producers of such clips are usually partisans, yep, but the subjects are in fact saying what they're saying. Not gonna catch AOC saying stuff like THIS though:

https://www.Twitter or X not allowed/i/web/status/1413496773767749634/

 

[Herdfan]

3) The analysis seems fair here, it's a stupid statement, but again the basic premise is major growth in inequalities and trumped up economical numbers. Just remember what happened in the first few weeks of the COVID lockdown...Companies that were bailed out and ended up spending billions on stock buybacks that benefited CEOs and shareholders disproportionately while these companies remained vulnerable and needed another bail out. This isn't how capitalism supposed to work...

This is probably a topic for a separate thread, but should you blame companies from using the law to their advantage or the pols that passed it for not putting more controls in it?

 

[SuperMatt]

This is probably a topic for a separate thread, but should you blame companies from using the law to their advantage or the pols that passed it for not putting more controls in it?

Yes.

It’s not an either/or proposition… perhaps you’ve heard of this thing they like to call lobbying?

 

[User.45]

This is probably a topic for a separate thread, but should you blame companies from using the law to their advantage or the pols that passed it for not putting more controls in it?

Ummmm....you just made AOC's point you listed as #1 above.

To elaborate:
1. Corporations' goal is to socialize cost but privatize profits. Just look at Coca-Cola a premier polluter, premier contributor to obesity, diabetes (i.e. healthcare costs).
2. They get their interests prioritized over the voters' through lobbying
3. AOC is antilobby. Hell, even Trump claimed to be antilobby until he started reaping the benefits of that influence.