DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Politics Better Than Her Critics #2

GOP sheep. “She’s an idiot because we can’t control what she says, her body, or her mind.”

Veterans walk out of meeting with Ocasio-Cortez after she bashes US foreign policy

By Isabel Vincent and Shant Shahrigian

June 1, 2019 | 12:59pm | Updated


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bashed US foreign policy during a private meeting with Bronx community leaders, prompting two military veterans to storm out.

“She knocks the country, she knocks the president. And that’s not what America is about,” said Silvio Mazzella, a Vietnam War vet and treasurer of Community Board 11.

Anthony Vitaliano — an Army veteran who worked in the NYPD for 38 years, and commanded the Bronx’s homicide detectives — was sitting between Ocasio-Cortez and a staffer for the freshman Dem.

“I just couldn’t hear her BS anymore,” the former CB11 chairman said. “I just got up, got my umbrella in my hand and walked right out.”

AOC held the closed-door meeting with about a dozen members of the board on Wednesday night, marking a rare visit to the Bronx part of her district.

One Middle Eastern board member raised the issue of the conflict in Yemen.

The progressive firebrand slammed the US policy of providing bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has supported Yemen’s government in a brutal civil war, according to attendees. Some blamed her for not including the roles of other nations in explaining the volatile region’s violence.

“Talking about America, that really turned me off completely,” said Mazzella, 74, who said he fought in Vietnam from 1966 to 1968.

When Israel came up later in the meeting, Ocasio-Cortez suggested President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are autocrats, according to a person at the meeting.

“I was revolted,” said the attendee, who didn’t want his name published.


He, Mazzella and Vitaliano said they all walked out in disgust before the end of the session.

Earlier, board members complained about problems with the US Postal Service, which regularly misses mail deliveries, and a local Amtrak property that is a magnet for graffiti vandals. CB 11 is a working-class neighborhood on the eastern side of the Bronx covering Allerton, Morris Park, Pelham Gardens and Van Nest. In addition to parts of the Bronx, Ocasio-Cortez’s district includes north-central Queens.

“Did she care about the issues? She wrote them down,” said Vitaliano, 78. “The jury will be out on the local issues.”

She “danced around the whole” question of Columbus Day, for which the neighborhood holds a parade every year, said Vitaliano, who supports creating a day for indigenous people but wants to preserve the treasured Italian-American tradition.

The room wasn’t entirely hostile to AOC, though. One attendee said, “There were a lot of people that really adored what she was saying.”

AOC’s office denied that anyone stormed out of the meeting.

“The only person that left the meeting while it was underway was someone who had to go pick up their children,” said AOC spokesman Corbin Trent.

Asked about Trent’s comment, Vitaliano said, “That’s bulls–t. Everybody that was there knows I walked out.”

https://nypost.com/2019/06/01/veterans-w...impression=true

Go off Queen!

Liberal sheep. "We love her because she's young, mildly attractive, and extremely socialist."

She's extremely socialist? Since when??

Wow.

Stared down the enemy on the field of battle, but then ran when a little girl said some stuff they didn't like.

Profiles in courage.

I get that they are veterans. I don't get why they ran. They could have stayed and asked questions. They could have countered her comments with assertions of their own. Dialogue is also an option. It would have been preferable to pearl-clutching and flight.

I find her entertaining because she causes the right wing to get their panties in a wad.

Healthcare - Free
Jobs - Guaranteed at $15/hour
Housing - Guaranteed
Higher Education - Free
Banking - Through the postal service?
Social Security - Taking more from the rich who won't qualify for benefits to give to those who will

So, really? Her entire platform is about the government controlling more and more of everything, controlling supply, controlling cost, controlling wages.. and if people can't afford something, just give it to them.

Yep ...”money is larger than life and we’re above the law. The poor can go pound salt.”
And really? Many countries have most of those things listed and aren’t considered a socialist society. And I so love how the GOP sheep like to equate socialists to communists. I always get a giggle out of that. Considering their allowing a known communist (Putin) to get away with meddling in our elections. Friggin commies pfft

I understand why one would assume she's a socialist, because in our political climate we've created a dualistic model that excludes terms for other political philosophies. However, she is a social Democrat and not a socialist. She believes that we can find a market based approach that guarantees citizens will be able to have certain rights. Other than m4a, all of these are 100% market based approaches towards equality. And without developing a socialized plan for medical care, covering insurance will still just be a market based approach.

A true sign that she's a social Democrat and not a socialist, is that you keep saying 'the government will provide' instead of saying that public ownership will rise.
A small, but very serious distinction.

But ultimately, if the government doesn't do this then who will? If capitalism is to be believed, it will be the individual. Will Elon Musk save us from global warming? Will Bezos raise the pay of every American? If capitalism is to be believed, then yes they will.

As a matter of semantics, I said she is "extremely socialist"... I didn't say she is pure socialist.

I just wrote a post in the net worth thread expressing my views on the spectrum from pure capitalism to pure socialism.. she is much farther down the spectrum toward socialism than I am.. I won't reproduce the whole post here.

I think AOC will be our first female president at the rate she is going. Just wanted to throw that out there.

It's certainly possible, here is one of the bigger challenges I think she is going to face.... she's only 29. She can't legally run until she's 35 and probably wouldn't run for at least a few years after that. So first she has to just maintain her seat in congress for that duration.

She won't be the shiny new thing by the time she runs, she will be viewed by then as being more a part of the establishment than somebody who stands up against it. She is going to have a long track record by the time she is in a position to run and I think the right would rise up against her even more than they did Hillary. In large part because she is farther left than Hillary.

I read it and it was good. I would say that our disagreement lies on how our spectrums are built. In my spectrum, socialism is the middle ground of communism and capitalism. I assume your spectrum is different than mine. My spectrum reads that even in America AOC is to the right of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), which is to the right of the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World). So I consider AOC to be barely socialist with the IWW would be extremely Socialists. Even to take it back to the original, AOC would be to the left of Warren, but to the right of Bernie Sanders.

Personally, I'm finding AOC very annoying, not uncommon in leftist circles, and I think she's the Democrats' version of Ted Cruz. Except much more elegant and smart, but still a ruthless social climber.

I would agree that it is between them, I would disagree that it is in the middle. If you are talking about each system in its pure form, communism and socialism are much closer together on the spectrum, with capitalism WAAAAAAAAAAAY over there.

ie.

Capitalism.............................................Socialism...........Communism
(Not exactly to scale)


I would agree with the analogy but disagree that she's much more smart...

Ted probably has a much better education and could regurgitate more facts. They are both smart but he is probably smarter education wise while she has more common sense and a better/stronger political ideology.

In any system, no matter what that system may be, there has to be checks and balances to protect the least of thee.

We've seen how unfettered capitalism worked, or in this case didn't work for the least of us. As such checks and balances were put in place to protect them.

The trend as been working in the opposite direction to the point that many in our nation see it and feel it on a daily basis.

That's what's opened the door for so many far left ideas. Because the checks and balances to help those who work within our society have been eroded.

It has opened the door for the far left to try to swing things in the other direction so widely, that we see unrealistic, extremist ideas becoming more popular.

IMO the far right has brought this on themselves by ignoring to protect and support the lesser income groups of working people in our nation. It has strengthened and emboldened the far left.

Had moderation been employed all along, we wouldn't be seeing what we are now.

I'm not going to go all in defending Ted Cruz, but he's 48 and has been in office for 6 or 7 years and, I'm sure, wakes up every day wondering how he is going to walk the fine line between doing what is right by his party and speaking his mind on Trump...... AOC has been in office for 20 minutes and has had a very large target as an enemy in which to address her frustration, let's see if her political ideology holds up as she is forced to capitulate to what the party demands...

AOC is one of the primary reasons why I will not vote for the Democrat in 2020. She has zero sound policies, she had accomplished zero professionally before entering politics, and she cost her constituency 25,000 jobs that she is heavily criticized for. I applaud Jeff Bezos for exposing and then ruining her.

She has zero chance of keeping her position as a congresswoman in the next election cycle.

She is one of the biggest reasons why Trump will get re-elected.

She has done nothing. - Those of you who seem to think otherwise, please, respond by listing her accomplishments.

I hear she makes a great Long Island Tea.

I said it elsewhere and you chose not to respond ... basing your political / party affiliation based on one or two extremes on either side of the isle is short sighted in my opinion. For every OAC or Dennis Kucinich there is a Roy Moore or David Nunes. Suggesting one side or the other has the worst extrmists or the stupidest members is wrong. I'll be voting based on and for the best of a presidential candidate not the worst in what you see in the fringes.

HA! That is the one skill she has. In all honesty, I would have supported and respected a presidential run by Michelle Obama - a qualified professional. But aoc, is ruining so much of the respect and loyalty the democratic party used to have. I tend to be in the average of just about everything, and if I converted to a Trump supporter because of the new idiots in congress, then I'm sure so many other people have also.

Fair enough, and I apologize for not responding. Then would you agree with me that if the Democrat nominee for president distances himself from aoc and omar, he would gain support from Democrats and Independents?

That's fair. My spectrum looks like this:

Feudalism........Capitalism........ Socialism........ Communism

Yeah, AOC is everything Ted Cruz wishes he was.

I have no idea how one loud mouth congresswoman from an extremely liberal district would have any impact on who one votes for as president. That's like saying you can't vote for Trump because the Republicans ran Roy Moore. Actually, Trump backed Roy Moore. But then they do have a lot in common. I mean I think they've been accused of sexual misconduct by about the same amount of women.

Murica!

I think so. And there are people running for the Democratic nomination whose platform isn't anything close to AOC's views. Both Biden and Mayor Pete are extremely different.

Or isn't their platform enough? Isn't their beliefs enough? Or should we ignore all of that and expect some public statement from them denouncing AOC?

Can you let her get a quarter way through her two year term before passing judgements on her term? Also, I wonder if she'll get another term or if a Democrat will give her a position in their cabinet.

She's as qualified as some of the appointees Trump has in his cabinet. But I certainly expect the bar to be set higher.

Can you list anything she's ever accomplished professionally or as a member of congress? Nothing, yet she's on the home page of so many websites almost daily.

I'm telling you, I'm convinced that yahoo.com and all of these other news outlets are parading her around because they want Trump to get re-elected. To get the level of respect back for the Democratic Party that it was, say, 3 years ago, the leadership needs to distance themselves from her. She's a complete embarrassment. And she needs to figure out how to get those jobs back that she lost her constituency.

What has or had Trump accomplished when he was elected? I only ask so I can laugh at your answer.

No - not at all.

Trump - pre-election - didn't distance himself from David Duke. He said (as POTUS) that there were fine people on both sides of a dispute between white supremacy ralliers and protesters where someone drove a car into the protesters....

You want to vote for Trump but your litmus test for not voting for the Democratic nominee is whether they distance themselves from democratically elected officials? While trump gets to pander and not distance himself from racists? . . . That makes a ton of sense.

"On March 3, Trump said, "David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years. ... I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now"

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/


Go ahead, your turn:

No, because I don't know what you mean by accomplishments, but also because expecting accomplishments by a freshman congressman in 5 months is weird. She's been running PR well, has helped the house oversight into focusing on Trump's financial record, and has done her job. One person doesn't make a democracy.

As for Yahoo, they're a News aggregate, not a publisher. The right loves focusing on AOC so everyone focuses on her. Like I said, she's good at PR.

On February 26, 2016, Trump took questions from the media. A reporter asked the emerging Republican frontrunner about an unsolicited endorsement he’d received from former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke. Duke had told listeners of his radio show to volunteer for Trump: "You're gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind set that you have." He said: "Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage."

Trump wasn’t happy with the question. "I didn't even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Alright," Trump shrugged. "I disavow it, okay?"

Trump’s grudging disavowal drew criticism from a wide variety of politicians and civil rights groups, including the the Anti-Defamation League. Two days later, CNN’s Jake Tapper offered Trump a chance to strengthen his half-hearted disavowal. "Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote and that of other white supremacists in this election?"

Trump didn’t offer an unequivocal condemnation. He didn’t offer condemnation at all. Instead, he responded with a jumble of half-truths, misdirections and Trumpian tropes meant to avoid any such condemnation.


"Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke," Trump said. "I don't even know anything about what you're talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know—did he endorse me or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about."

https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/hayes-why-wont-trump-denounce-white-supremacists

I've also seen Trump claim he didn't know who Duke was ... but your own quote puts that lie to rest. He knew who he was and still tried to be vague and ambiguous initially.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-about-former-/

"I don't know any -- honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I have ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-duke-i-think-trump-knows-who-i-am

In a phone interview with The Daily Beast, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard said it was ridiculous to condemn Trump. “If he disavows me fine," Duke said. "Let him do whatever he thinks he needs to do to become president of the United States."

“I think he knows who I am,” Duke said. “But he doesn’t know what I actually stand for today.”

Either way, Trump disassociated himself from Duke but Biden hasn't disassociated himself from aoc. He needs to, or Trump wins in a landslide. Btw, go to yahoo right now and look who's on their front page. She's done nothing but embarrass herself and yahoo knows that. She's going to be a major reason why Trump wins in 2020.

Are you seriously comparing AOC to flippin David Duke? You are a joke.

It seems he is. You can't make this stuff up folks!

Ummm, No. Please check the post above where MGH888 brought David Duke into this.

His exact words: "Trump - pre-election - didn't distance himself from David Duke. He said (as POTUS) that there were fine people on both sides of a dispute between white supremacy ralliers and protesters where someone drove a car into the protesters...."


Apology accepted.