politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is a terrible take. There is plenty she says that conservatives disagree with. She does not have the same policy goals as conservatives...obviously. She would say the same thing.
Examples:
She has called Capitalism "irredeemable" which many capitalists would disagree with.
She supports single payer Healthcare when others believe competition builds a better system overall, or believe Healthcare isn't an appropriate role of government.
She believes in a federal job guarantee when some think the government can encourage employment and welfare in other ways more effectively, or believe that isn't the role of government.
She believes in canceling all outstanding student loan debt when others believe there are more effective ways to help the needy more specifically, or believe those with college degrees should be low on the priority list for assistance, or believe people should be on the hook for loans they took out.
Obviously there are arguments for all of her positions, YOU might agree with all of them, but the idea that no conservative can give any examples of things they disagree with her about is absurd and laughable.
This is a great point as well, but I think a large point they were trying to make is conservatives have made a point of hating her and making her a point of their ridicule with almost no solid basis to stand on.
They just react to her name and initials as a dog whistle, without any of the reasons you’ve listed.
His point (as I understood it) wasn't necessarily that conservatives have nothing to disagree with her about, but that a lot of the people espousing hate for her don't actually have firm rational reasons for doing so, and are just hating on her because they were told she's bad by their favorite politicians, commentators, news media, etc.
Which frankly seems accurate for a reasonable amount of her critics based on the discourse I've personally seen surrounding her.
And that's even before we get into the weird thing a lot of conservatives have about her appearance..
Correct ^
It would be easier to get behind what "others believe" if the system they love so dearly wasn't a proven failure for anyone who isn't wealthy. It's been abused for decades, and all we have to show for it is more poor people suffering. You're 100% right in that (some) conservatives do disagree with AOC on specific issues; it's just that those issues in question were/are largely created by and/or supported by conservatives, who have little to offer aside from "we don't want anything to change."
This kind of akshually mentality distracts from the issues, which is what you're doing right now by nitpicking an obviously false absolute statement OP made. Nobody really thinks @ventrix is talking about 100% of all conservatives; to make a claim like that is more misleading and more prone to have a negative impact than anything OP said.
I never made an argument about her beliefs, only her ability to effectively realize them. The original argument seemed to imply the people can't offer up real reasons to dislike her. Her policy to me isn't her problem. I don't currently see her as an example of someone who can actually get things done. That might change over time, but that's my criticism of AOC and why her level of popularity doesn't really make much sense to me other than...populists say things the base likes to hear. Again, talk it cheap.