NY-14: Goliath falls to OCASIO!

[Chief Justice Keef]

My guess is Crowley still wins 65-35. Ocasio-Cortez would be an amazing congresswoman but I feel like her momentum is too little, too late.

[Chief Justice Keef]

My guess is Crowley still wins 65-35. Ocasio-Cortez would be an amazing congresswoman but I feel like her momentum is too little, too late.

And what's so amazing about her??? Besides gender and Hispanic name...

Because she’s a progressive actually willing to fix the fundamentals problems of our declining middle class and growing gap between rich and poor.

Buh muh centrism

[Chief Justice Keef]

Speaking of terrible debate performance from NYC incumbents:


https://twitter.com/insidecityhall/status/1008864032277909506?s=21

LOL she literally did the "I'm not mad, I'm actually laughing" meme unironically

[Chief Justice Keef]

And here I was thinking Crowley would win easily anyways because machine politics. So glad to be wrong.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Ocasio Cortez is a low iq and grody moron. Crowley has done everything right in his concession and actions since the primary.

Please explain further what makes her a low-IQ individual, I'd love to see you try and explain race science

[Chief Justice Keef]

If Crowley wants to support Ocasio-Cortez in November, then he has the option to decline the nomination and vacate the Working Families Party line. He has refused to do so.

Even the state director of the WFP acknowledges this.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Is Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez a 26-year old with a majorly inflated ego throwing a temper tantrum to raise so money? Yes.

Oh give me a break. You're being a partisan defender of a scuzzy politician who ran a foreclosure mill forcing working people out of their homes for personal benefit until 2017.

Just because someone young and ambitious beat him does not mean you need to go running her down. Whatever your benighted reason for liking a sclerotic, selfish power abuser.

One of many reasons why a vast majority of competitive to GOP friendly seats that are held by dems are held by more centrist to moderate democrats. It's because hardly anyone outside of your base likes your abrasive, arrogant, and radical candidates or camp. Think Ocasio Cortez would win WV, PA 18 (old district, the one that elected Lamb this spring), or even NJ 5 in a GE? Think again. While does anyone have any doubt that NY 14th would be a lock in a GE for Manchin, Lamb, and Gottheimer?

Good to know the feeling is mutual, Bagel.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I don't agree with a single word of this, but the most viewed story on The Hill today is a piece on how Democratic Representatives Bill Pascrell (NJ), Alcee Hastings (FL), Lacy Clay (MO) and Jon Larson (CONN) all are getting pissed at Ocasio Cortez, saying that her rhetoric is already causing members of her own party to turn on her before she even gets into office.

The largest anger behind the scenes coming from the whole Twitter spat in which Ocasio Cortez claimed that Crowley was going to attempt a 3rd Party Run, with Dem Representatives saying that those type of inexperienced outbursts could be responsible for costing Democrats The House of Representatives this year.

Some Dems are also furious at her endorsing 5 primary challenges to Democratic Incumbents, claiming that division within the party is the last thing we need at a time in which The Republican Party should be viewed as the enemy, and not members of their own party.

Dems are saying that she's digging herself into a hole that she won't be able to get out of, because there will come a time when she wants to get something done in office, but can't, because it will come down to the very people that she's criticized instead of getting along with.   

Lmao, what a bunch of whiners. At least Cori Bush has a decent shot at defeating Clay.

[Chief Justice Keef]

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hurts party, Congress and even America"

Hey, Joe, your decrepit, ghoulish face hurts every American's eyes.

[Chief Justice Keef]

This thread is nothing but a disaster. Some people are not satisfied even when they win.

Stop concern trolling then, if you're so concerned about threads becoming messes.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Apparently Ocasio-Cortez is an incredibly persuasive speaker, as one Daily Caller reporter was so horrified to find out how convincing her platform was.

https://splinternews.com/the-daily-caller-went-to-an-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ra-1827826727

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The article of course made me lol, but I guess one argument for expanding Ocasio-Cortez's platform to a national level is that she's forcing conservatives to argue that people don't deserve living wages or healthcare.

[Chief Justice Keef]

A single-payer system would cost less than the current system in the US. Funny how that never gets brought up in these "BUHHHH HOW ARE WE GUNNA PAY FOR IT" conversations.

Ocasio is an idiot and DeSantis rightfully put her arrogant self back in check with reality. I will miss Crowley so much.

A Freedom Caucus dunderhead who referred to her as "this girl or whatever" put her in her place? I think you need a reality check.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Last time I checked it was Republican candidates who wore their ignorance about policy as a badge of honor.
Good to see that Democrats are are getting in the game too.

Republicans control every lever of political power in this country, while Democrats keep getting clobbered pathetically. If you'd rather stay on your high horse than win elections, more power to you, but hopefully the rest of the party disagrees.

Except socialists provide little electoral value. Basically almost all our seats that take serious electoral skill to get and then hold are held by moderate dems. Please tell me that Ocasio Cortez would win MN 7th, WV Sen, Conor Lamb's special election, would have beaten Roy Moore, NJ 5th, etc.

Ironic coming from a self-professed Blue Dog, a caucus that hemorrhaged seats in 2010 even after its members had voted against the Affordable Care Act and distanced themselves from Obama. How can you claim to have the keys to winning when the Blue Dogs haven't been relevant for nearly a decade now?

[Chief Justice Keef]

I see the Moderate Hero Industrial Complex is out in full force again...

This is no time for muh policy wonkery and precise calculations of costs down to the decimals. That time comes after the election. This is the time to propose the bold solutions that this country needs, and AOC is doing just that. She doesn't have to have precise figure, that's not what voters want for her. Hillary proposed Detailed and Practical policies that amounted to a bandaid on a broken leg and see where it got her.

Except the problem is socialists hardly ever do that even AFTER winning. Mostly because a lot of them are gripey professional students who want a free bailout. So when they get into office, they just pull from the first place where more well off people have a little reserve or some revenue.

Right because the Reasonable Centrist policies like Obamacare were so well thought out they've started falling apart as soon as they started being implemented.

They would work better than medicare for all and Obamacare can still be fixed.

Which is why every country with Medicare for all has far better health outcomes AND spends less on it than the US.

They have some good aspects like banding together to help regulate drug prices, which is admirable, along with and other things I believe we can add it onto our system and make it better than theirs. It's better to have a hybrid system that is mainly private but backed by the government instead of giving everything to the inefficient government. And no, I don't think that many other countries have better healthcare than us. Pricing wise, yes, we can include some of their aspects, but what if I told you the government running stuff is not the solution to everything? Our taxes are already high enough, and the government is already big enough. And I say that as a big gov fed.

You're spouting fact-free nonsense. If you wanna play the "AOC is ignorant on the issues!!!" card, maybe try to do your own research before.

I'm sorry I don't agree with even more taxes, debt, and an even larger government.

If that's the case, you should support Medicare for All, as it would save $303 billion a year in health expenditures while insuring 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminating out-of-pocket health care expenses, according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center.

http://archive.is/u0Bnb#selection-209.46-209.104

[Chief Justice Keef]

I see the Moderate Hero Industrial Complex is out in full force again...

This is no time for muh policy wonkery and precise calculations of costs down to the decimals. That time comes after the election. This is the time to propose the bold solutions that this country needs, and AOC is doing just that. She doesn't have to have precise figure, that's not what voters want for her. Hillary proposed Detailed and Practical policies that amounted to a bandaid on a broken leg and see where it got her.

Except the problem is socialists hardly ever do that even AFTER winning. Mostly because a lot of them are gripey professional students who want a free bailout. So when they get into office, they just pull from the first place where more well off people have a little reserve or some revenue.

Right because the Reasonable Centrist policies like Obamacare were so well thought out they've started falling apart as soon as they started being implemented.

They would work better than medicare for all and Obamacare can still be fixed.

Which is why every country with Medicare for all has far better health outcomes AND spends less on it than the US.

They have some good aspects like banding together to help regulate drug prices, which is admirable, along with and other things I believe we can add it onto our system and make it better than theirs. It's better to have a hybrid system that is mainly private but backed by the government instead of giving everything to the inefficient government. And no, I don't think that many other countries have better healthcare than us. Pricing wise, yes, we can include some of their aspects, but what if I told you the government running stuff is not the solution to everything? Our taxes are already high enough, and the government is already big enough. And I say that as a big gov fed.

You're spouting fact-free nonsense. If you wanna play the "AOC is ignorant on the issues!!!" card, maybe try to do your own research before.

I'm sorry I don't agree with even more taxes, debt, and an even larger government.

If that's the case, you should support Medicare for All, as it would save $303 billion a year in health expenditures while insuring 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminating out-of-pocket health care expenses, according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center.

http://archive.is/u0Bnb#selection-209.46-209.104

Medicare for all would enlarge the size of the government, make higher taxes, and who the hell wants the government to run even more stuff besides the fringe? Not many people in congress do, which is why your dreams about it are not coming true for quite a while .

What about the majority of the Democratic Caucus that's co-sponsored HR 676?

[Chief Justice Keef]

I see the Moderate Hero Industrial Complex is out in full force again...

This is no time for muh policy wonkery and precise calculations of costs down to the decimals. That time comes after the election. This is the time to propose the bold solutions that this country needs, and AOC is doing just that. She doesn't have to have precise figure, that's not what voters want for her. Hillary proposed Detailed and Practical policies that amounted to a bandaid on a broken leg and see where it got her.

Except the problem is socialists hardly ever do that even AFTER winning. Mostly because a lot of them are gripey professional students who want a free bailout. So when they get into office, they just pull from the first place where more well off people have a little reserve or some revenue.

Right because the Reasonable Centrist policies like Obamacare were so well thought out they've started falling apart as soon as they started being implemented.

They would work better than medicare for all and Obamacare can still be fixed.

Which is why every country with Medicare for all has far better health outcomes AND spends less on it than the US.

They have some good aspects like banding together to help regulate drug prices, which is admirable, along with and other things I believe we can add it onto our system and make it better than theirs. It's better to have a hybrid system that is mainly private but backed by the government instead of giving everything to the inefficient government. And no, I don't think that many other countries have better healthcare than us. Pricing wise, yes, we can include some of their aspects, but what if I told you the government running stuff is not the solution to everything? Our taxes are already high enough, and the government is already big enough. And I say that as a big gov fed.

You're spouting fact-free nonsense. If you wanna play the "AOC is ignorant on the issues!!!" card, maybe try to do your own research before.

I'm sorry I don't agree with even more taxes, debt, and an even larger government.

If that's the case, you should support Medicare for All, as it would save $303 billion a year in health expenditures while insuring 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminating out-of-pocket health care expenses, according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center.

http://archive.is/u0Bnb#selection-209.46-209.104

Medicare for all would enlarge the size of the government, make higher taxes, and who the hell wants the government to run even more stuff besides the fringe? Not many people in congress do, which is why your dreams about it are not coming true for quite a while .

What about the majority of the Democratic Caucus that's co-sponsored HR 676?

There are enough blue dogs in the senate to block any sort of this socialized medicine.

And in doing so, they will prove to be as useless as always. Much like you.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Unfortunately Ben refuses to take the L.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1027731715039453184

[Chief Justice Keef]

I wouldn't want to debate a crazy person like him either. Offering money to debate anyone is weird.

It's also in violation of federal campaign finance law.

Unfortunately Ben refuses to take the L.

-tweet-

Why would she make such a response? It's within her rights to not want to debate, but it only consolidates the impression, which has now been formed by many, of her ignorance and her arrogance.

It was entirely Ben's arrogance to try and bribe Ocasio-Cortez into debating him on his stupid show.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Unfortunately Ben refuses to take the L.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1027731715039453184

Why would she make such a response? It's within her rights to not want to debate, but it only consolidates the impression, which has now been formed by many, of her ignorance and her arrogance.

I doubt she wants to actually do a debate with anyone who challenges her beliefs, even softball interviews with Margaret Hoover and Chris Cuomo have revealed her to be a total idiot

You really think the interview with Cuomo showed her being an idiot? Now thats moronic.

I'm sure I'm your world funeral costs will pay for a multi-million dollar healthcare plan, and she became a stuttering mess when pushed to acknowledge that Pelosi was leader of the house dems, Palin was far more articulate than this idiot

Thankfully Medicare for All would actually cost less than the current US healthcare system according to the Koch-funded Mercatus center.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

[Chief Justice Keef]

The Shapiro vs. Ocasio-Cortez debate would've been the former sputtering about Venezuela for an hour and complaining about identity politics. Don't pretend it would've been a constructive dialogue or a synthesis of two worldviews. Shapiro is not entitled to have a debate with Ocasio-Cortez, plain and simple.

Was Ocasio-Cortez's response the most subtle? Maybe not. But I'd be pretty pissed too if some whiny conservative "intellectual" tried to bribe me with $10,000 to talk to him for an hour on his pathetic radio show.

[Chief Justice Keef]

For anyone who still buys into the "conservative intellectual Ben Shapiro" myth:

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

For additional reading, don't forget to read Shapiro's magnum opus and novel-length Freudian slip True Allegiance to learn more about his deeply held beliefs about police shootings.

[Chief Justice Keef]

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1027729430137827328

AOC in response to Ben Shapiro's debate challenge. How can one be this awful? She's shaping up to be one of the worst members of Congress.

Why does Ben need to pay women to hang out with him?

[Chief Justice Keef]

For anyone who still buys into the "conservative intellectual Ben Shapiro" myth:

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

For additional reading, don't forget to read Shapiro's magnum opus and novel-length Freudian slip True Allegiance to learn more about his deeply held beliefs about police shootings.

Shapiro has acknowledged this piece, yet does not respond. Perhaps he will accept Nathan Robinson's debate offer.

I think plans are developing for a debate with Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project.

[Chief Justice Keef]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?