[FEDERALIST] Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Could Be The Left’s Donald Trump

[Edited to remove a childish insult and to make a better point.]

Do people realize Ben is 34? I remember when he was a teenager he was saying exactly what he does today. It was impressive then, but not so much now. He graduated from Harvard Law, but I only hear about him now when he's "DESTROYING" Jimmy Kimmel or making Piers Morgan look like a dolt or, now, challenging a naive congressional candidate who has a lot to learn. He's like a boxer cherry picking opponents.

Ben should be debating fellow Harvard Law grads like Joaquin or Julian Castro. Challenge experienced 30-something politicians like Jason Kander or Pete Buggigieg. What about Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams? She has a law degree from Yale. Maybe someone from his own field like Matt Yglesias or Josh Marshall? It's time for Ben to move up in weight.

 

Cortez derangement syndrome?

 

Shapiro has made a career from Youtube click bait videos. This is his revenue maker. Can you blame him?

 

I guess not. He's the Butterbean of political debate.

 

Again, literally nothing I said was racist or xenophobic. I know you aren't among the best and brightest that we have to offer here, but you seriously need to do better than this.

In fact, I''ll play along. Point out what I said that is racist or xenophobic and explain why you think those facts are racist or xenophobic facts. Perhaps if you try to work it out yourself, you'll figure out the obvious, that the facts I mentioned aren't racist or xenophobic.....even if they are unfortunate.

 

I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out what he said, that when he heard he'd be debating Cameron, he agreed to it. Basically when he found out that he was going to be debating a moron, he agreed to it, something he wouldn't have done if it was a halfway intelligent person....so yeah, he was an intellectual coward.

Ah yes, if only there were more censorship then Nazi Germany wouldn't have happened. That's peak current year leftist thinking.

I'm sure Cruz would love to slap around an idiot like Cenk, kind of a foolish example on your part.

Also when it comes to Cruz debating "Beto", isn't he trying to set up 3 debates with him right now? If anything I would expect Whitey O'Rourke to try and get out of doing those debates because the LAST thing he wants to have to do is debate issues. Right now he's an Irishman running entirely on a Hispanic nickname. If he has to get into substance, his numbers will tank even further.

 

Lol, Dawkins is scared of talking to no one, but hey, it seems most of what you do is name call and insult.

You should hear it from the mouth of Spencer. He says the biggest thing that's stopped him and slowed down his movement is being deplatformed. These people seek platforms, the idea that we should just let other people discern the truth for themselves is pretty silly. We know that people don't always seek or care for the truth, we know that people are willing to listen to lies or not be able to tell a lie from a truth...so yes, having Spencer in debates on national TV would be horrible for the country. We've already seen a growth in these ideas thanks to people thinking "Just debate him and make him look stupid!" You don't seem to realize that he recruits the ignorant and the misinformed.

Do you know how religion spreads? Missionaries go into countries, find a platform, and spread the word. Hateful racist rhetoric, historically, has been shown to work the exact same way. So no, debating types like Richard Spencer does nothing but display him to more misinformed and angry people.

You really are into your insults, you can get your point across without calling everyone an idiot. I mean I could just say the opposite "Cenk would love to slap around Cruz..." it proves nothing. It's trash talk. Fact is, Cenk offered Cruz the same debate. If Cruz does not take it that means that Cruz's ideals are weak and can't hold up in the face of debate, right?

 

His actions and his words suggest otherwise.

Of course that's what he says, but that's not the reality of it. His audience grew due to him being deplatformed and censored. It made him out to be a sympathetic character....when he's actually allowed to speak, that's when things go to hell for him. The more he says, the smaller his audience.

 

Cruz is putting forward ridiculous demands like the debates can only be about topics that he chooses. That isn't going to work for anyone.

 

Sigh.... how much is America paying in insurance premiums each year? Right now, what is the total cost spent each year by each American?

Universal healthcare is no longer a position that is too extreme to argue.

 

Good luck, glynch. I can't see who you are posting to, but you've made it plain. You have more patience than I do.

I don't understand the seemingly deliberate ignorance we're faced with whenever this issue comes up, and it has come up numerous times over the years. We live with socialism in this country everyday. The goofus (pardon my French) that you are responding to probably has parents or grandparents, aunts and uncles, some cousins - all of whom are participating in a socialist program. I imagine "what's his name" contributes in his paycheck. What would that program be? It's obvious, and even has "social" in it's name. Social Security. A socialist program if there ever was one, and millions depend upon it.

It's a dog whistle, pure and simple.

Joe McCarthy writ small.

 

I didn't hear that, for sure that would be absolutely ridiculous.

I don't know about health insurance premiums alone, but all healthcare spending is over 3 trillion.....but the idea that the government is going to take that over and run things cheaper or more efficiently is....well, that just never happens.

So if we're going to have national "free" healthcare, the very first thing you'd have to do is literally double taxes and in return you'd get something similar to the VA that is a massive pain in the ass, fairly low quality, and you have to wait forever to get anything done due to scarcity of resources.....but prescription drugs would be "free", so that's a thing if you can get them.

When it comes to the conversation itself, I do agree that things have moved far enough to the left to where things like universal healthcare is up for discussion.....but it's still a bad idea IMO. That said, I almost want to do it because that kind of disaster is exactly what people deserve to have happen. I'm fairly sure I'll be alright, so let's just take a torch to the economy like so many seem to want to do and we'll see what happens.

 

His actions and words are that of a rational person.

Why do you think a scientist, like Dawkins, would want to constantly seriously entertain non-science issues?

Again, why would any astrophysicist debate a flat-earther? It is pointless, there are no facts that the scientist can throw out that would convince a flat earther because to reach that position one has to deny facts in the first place. All you are doing, as Dawkins said, is giving a platform to crazy.

Yeah, that's just not happening. White Nationalism wasn't even a thing until people started giving people like Spencer platforms. It wasn't even a thing during Obama years, Bush years, Clinton, etc. It was so fringe that it was nonexistent.

 

Even if he says it, I don't believe it. History tells us that censorship (at least in a democracy) and the media circus that follows increases profile more than virtually any platform. The Streisand Effect is real.

Did you not grow up in the south or spend any time in rural areas? White nationalism has been and still is an extremely rare and fringe thing.

 

Actually what gave rise to the Richard Spencers of the world was the rise of identity politics aided by Obama who didn't speak out against it until after he was out of office. Had he done so a decade ago, perhaps we wouldn't have seen the rise of identitarian BS because identitarian politics gives way to more identitarian politics. Without BLM there is no Richard Spencer.

 

Is it real? Is it a fact that if you try to hide something it then, by default, becomes bigger? The Streisand effect to me speaks more of curiosity.

I think history has more of a precedent of showing people following movements led by propaganda and lies.

Well, that is anecdotal, I'm going by polls.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...supremacists-kkk-far-right-poll-a7907091.html

Ahh there we go, let's blame Obama.

 

You can't deny that he played a factor in the rise of identitarian politics in America....perhaps he thought it was harmless, but I think he realizes otherwise now which is why recently he's spoken out against identitarian politics for the first time.....well after he's out of office. I just wish he had done so earlier. Every time he egged on groups like BLM with comments like "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" it was helping the recruiting of ALL identitarian groups, they are a cancer that feed off of each other. When one rises, it feeds the rest and they rise quickly afterwards.

I know you don't personally like that truth, but it is what it is.

 

Pro-Trump media can't defend the cornerstone of Traitor Trump's administration, corruption, cover-ups, cat fights
(mooch/Prievus, Kelly/Omarosa, Tillerson/Trump, etc), criminal prosecutions/investigation.

hell, they can't even defend the tax cuts; even the Trump base understands that, more than anyone else,
it benefits the top 1%.

so, they pick the easiest target out there to attack.

she hasn't been even been elected, but she is the easiest target

that's the best right-wing media can put forth, as there are no GOP issues about which they want to discus

 

Yeah, nice...

So would you say that Trump has helped or harmed identarian movements?

 

There's no question he was part of the problem too. That said, the momentum behind identitarian politics seems to be dying a bit. We'll see if that trend continues.