What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

about her*

She cares too much

her ability to get the right to constantly self-own without even doing anything is incredible. at first I thought the "they're terrified of her" thing was overblown but they clearly are. not just because she's so far left but also because I don't think she's willing to "play ball" the way people like Schumer and Obama were. plus the fact that she's young and massively popular will only encourage more like her to come out of the woodwork which could shape US politics for decades to come. she's only been in office for a month but she already feels like an icon.

God, does this woman have a gazillions tons of hope resting on her shoulders or what?

I look forward to many years of right-wing sputtering about the outrageous policy positions of this lefty commie socialist who okay is very attractive but that's not the point because she's going to destroy this country perhaps even with her smoldering good looks.

I think the biggest thing she can achieve, especially in the near term, is to inspire more like minded young politicians to run.

however, if i worry about anything with AOC, it's that one day she's going to slip up in some major way, probably on twitter. the right wing is foaming at the mouth to take her down because they recognize what a beacon she's already become.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

she came out too fully formed as an awesome politician and therefore must actually be either an alien or a veteran operative in disguise

fwiw I maintain muted expectations about what she can actually achieve in the system but so far she has exceeded them

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

she's already exceeded expectations. no one was talking about a Green New Deal or a 70% top rate before she came along.

imo her strength so far has been to say exactly enough, or to respond with tongue-in-cheek fact checks about her stances without jumping into clusterfucks

having someone with actual policy stances without a political or even social past deep enough to sabotage dialogue in favor of ad hominem attacks is a net positive. media and public commentary almost demands a personality or face to link policy to, because policy is abstract and complicated and presenting an individual makes the job easier. if she's that person, have at it

it's a refreshing change from the right-wing version in the tea party goons, who had notional policy ideas and were 90% horrible personality and demagoguery

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:51 PM (forty-eight seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is kind of bullshitty. She voted for the bill to reopen govt.

btw it does pain me to bring up the "Trump of the left" thing but it does occur to me that she's *actually* good at all the political stuff that people thought Trump was good at

xp

This was not a catch-all bill to reopen the federal government, which has been shut down for weeks while Trump refuses to sign a budget until he gets funding for a border wall. That was a different vote. No, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled an entirely separate vote solely on funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Alfred's post reminds me of an article about perpetual ratfucker Gingrich, who was wildly successful at his goals until the day he wasn't

iirc she has changed her tack on how she votes for bills like that one. she recently was the sole dem holdout on another funding bill I believe?

yeah I was gonna say that libcom link falls more under "legit critique of a particular action" than a "flaw" and if she's already moved on from that stance then so much the better.

the way Congress operates you kind of have to either vote for some bad things or not vote for some good things because it all comes in the same bill. I don't think she'd actually vote against abolishing ICE if such a thing were to come up.

Cool thanks I wasn't really buying it too much (basically if you fuck with electoralism lib com goes after you)

But that's the only thing I've seen (and I almost always only entertain critiques of left-politicians from the left)

I was reading this piece on her call with Corbyn and she was swayed a bit on the allegations he is an anti-semite. That's more a product of doing too much twitter where everyone tweets to you with their agendas.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/02/how-to-think-clearly-about-anti-semitism-controversies-in-the-labour-party

But if the worst thing is that she might tweet something that isn't so good at times then she's doing amazing.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

― Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:50 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump methods too. You float something outrageous (end birthright citizenship), everyone goes "THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS" and then the "smart" and "reasonable" people say "well actually lots of countries don't have birthright citizenship at all." Now you've shifted the debate into your territory, and maybe you can't change the constitution in that particular case, but you've weakened resistance to tighter immigration laws.

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

I'm still laughing at this tweet chain where her chief of staff was clued in not to take a meeting with known grifters (original post deleted but you get the jist)

This guy is a dingbat grifter, take the time to do 3 seconds of googling bro

— Dan (@dankmtl) February 4, 2019

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

frogbs otm, that would be the real overton window shifting strategy, but Trump literally doesn't understand it and is obsessed with numbers

If he were to get six billion he's still not building a wall, he's saying "we built it" and just tossing the money at the border patrol/DHS and never calling them to check to see where it went

he's stuck on six billion = wall

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

― frogbs, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:03 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump personally is a mental and emotional child. I mean Stephen Miller and the like.

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

― Trϵϵship, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:05 PM (fifteen seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I literally told a friend I thought she could be president back when we weren't even sure if she could win her primary. I don't attribute that to any special insight, it's plain to see.

She’s actually impressive in an age of mass disillusionment.

I mean decisively taking down a well-liked establishment dude like Crowley with like 5% of the funding and no corporate endorsements whatsoever is legit one of the most impressive political accomplishments I've ever witnessed

for sure

although "well-liked" might be a stretch -- I think he was a bit complacent and absent from his district, leaving more of an opening than realized. But def well-connected in queens overall. I mean, chair of the queens democratic party, mr. machine.

I like her a lot and think she has a bright future, including a possible path to the presidency if she chooses to pursue it (which is a bit difficult to do from the House, historically). There is, of course, still plenty of time for her to flame out or not deliver on big legislative priorities, but so far she's been very sure-footed and she has excellent priorities and communications skills.

her main flaw appears to be her mortality and lack of imperviousness to bullets fired by white nationalists

xp - he was like 3rd in line for Speaker, right?

xp

Uhhhh.....

main reason for this thread is that she is an excellent twitterer, so maybe her daily handful of zings can go here instead of the other threads.


this is an argument against a fourth thread

xps iirc the last recent notable political assassination was in the UK, let's not throw stones shall we?

Steve Scalise and Gabby Giffords, tho

It really isn't funny to joke about at all

otm

steve scalise jokes are funny cause he survived and he's fucking asshole. Speculating about political assassinations that haven't happened is not particularly funny imho

"I hope she doesn't get assassinated" has an uncomfortable undertone of concern trolling

I'm still amazed no one managed to take a pop at Obama over 8 years

I'm just voicing everyone's fear. I really, really hope she is able to fulfil her apparent destiny

I hate even speculating about it, but other than just the level of security presidents now have, I chalk it up to there probably being about an equally small number of people with sufficient motive and means to assassinate any president, like it's just always a small pool of people, racist or not.

i'm amazed any of us are alive tbh

Take heart in the fact that political assassinations/assassination attempts are frequently the work of apolitical nutballs trying (for wholly-fabricated example) to drum up attention for their hand modeling career by taking a crack at a Missouri state senator who they mistook for Count Chocula. Very rarely is there any reasoned intention behind the act.

she really is an icon already

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DywzDuTUYAAopLa.jpg:large

I wonder how long before the right tries to paint her as Eva Peron? You just know they are waiting to exploit even the tiniest cracks they can drive a wedge into. Some cracks they can exploit are bound to show up, especially as the left begins to pile more and more hopes on her and place greater demands for taking leadership on her shoulders. I hope she can assemble a very strong and astute group of staff and informal advisors to take some of that load. She's young, smart and strong, but she's human, too.

she has a staff and she doesn't need to spend time on fundraising calls. she has more time than any of them to strategize

first there would have to be americans who knew who eva peron was besides a madonna role

the right going all-out on her might backfire when there's suddenly a dozen more AOC-like candidates in 2022

you make clumsy points

Feel like this is why there's a doomposting containment thread, not because the doomposting is wrong, just because you have to put it to one side or else absolutely everything becomes doomposting.

exactly. i know it's a cliche to say "go to therapy instead of doomposting" but in this case. . . . some of y'all need some therapy

like i was saying some people need to touch some grass

Palestinians would love some grass to touch, they’d probably eat it because we are helping to starve them

the 'garbled statement' is all that matters here - an amendment that was doomed to die on a bill that was guaranteed to pass, who cares

If the question is whether AOC can ever move from midbench in the House to a national candidate, moments like this are not a good indicator. The "left" isn't going to go hard and flood the streets for someone who bullshits them on a pointless vote and the tribal left-liberal Democratic voter (her core of support) is a group that just doesn't matter because they're going to vote blue no matter who, their allegiance is to the party, what it means to be not-a-Republican and they'll proudly back anyone the party tells them to in the end.

No, I'd be pretty damn worked if she voted on the bill and/or the amendment.

*worked up

Palestinians would love some grass to touch, they’d probably eat it because we are helping to starve them

― czech hunter biden's laptop (the table is the table), Tuesday, July 22, 2025 4:16 PM (twenty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

hope you realize how gross this is

hope you realize that i don’t care what you think about my posts

Unperson's predictions on US pol have been so interestingly, hysterically inaccurate, that I am now thinking AOC will become president with this kind of compromised Hilary Clinton-y style politics and communications strategy.

1. The US is super misogynistic
2. The judgment of her actions based on some hypothetical presidential candidacy also feels patriarchal to me
3. There is a difference between supporting defensive vs offensive capabilities
4. Support for the Israeli military considering their offensive actions is a super bad move

"3. There is a difference between supporting defensive vs offensive capabilities"

Disagree. By supporting defensive capabilities Israel is being shielded from its actions.

Money and supplies given for “defense” are resources Israel doesn’t have to expend on offense.

Can expend lol

“defense” = massively disproportionate retribution

I am hoping AOC is seeing the response to this , and her Convention speech Israel comments, and is learning something ( unlike say a Schumer or Pelosi or Jeffries who just double down). Will have to wait and see ( or has she already addressed this lately?)

Point 3 is a general point not specific to Israel … it’s like, defense would be bulletproof vests and offense would be guns … but I had hoped that y’all would read point 4 and not get belligerent but this is ilx so … why did I think otherwise

Point 3 is a bad general point, though.

I shouldn’t have posted tbh but it was kinda creepy that all the posts on this revive were by men

Point 3 I took it to be about the iron dome. If you want your posts to not be taken the way they post more specifically. Or not. Its free either way.

sorry, sarahell, forgot what thread I was on, sure didn’t mean to sound like I’m ganging up on this one woman. And I’ve honesty never heard of funding defense referred to in that way, so sorry again.

Xp - fair enough

its ok to not encourage encouragement of israel's actions by any significant leaders on the left of any identity or none ihibittoa

Point 3 is a general point not specific to Israel

should the usa be funding air defence for say, russia then?

JD Vance (40 yo) and AOC (35) tweet in a similar-ish way. There's a defensive, whiny tone, they both often feel hard done by, its v online.

They both wear eyeliner

Look, I don’t like her political grandstanding and wishy-washy staking out of positions, but perhaps we can actually cut out the real sexism of comments like the one above. Who gives a fuck who wears eyeliner.

It was a joke about Vance? Anybody can wear eyeliner in don’t give a fuck but Vance doing so, given his attitude toward traditional gender roles, is just plain weird.

But it was a a thoughtless throwaway reference, and I see your point.

it reminds me of memes you see where trump is hideously malfigured in ways that tell you more about what certain people find ugly .. like, with flies circling around him or something .. or girly in some way, or getting fucked by putin or whatever .. from there it's tempting to start wondering if maybe the mediated access we are granted to these people is just a giant simulated rorschach test we could actually just opt out of with no consequence. i've been putting that one to the test lately and, so far so good.

Map otm