What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

ok, enough is enough. she gets a thread.

haha nice callback title

cool now we have four US politics threads

She's fairly disrespectful to our president, for a start.

she's so awesome she makes everyone else look bad

excellent title

if people don't want to use it, they won't

xp

sharp knees

american

If she's able to maintain her political stance (and especially if she winds up being an effective legislator) I would be very comfortable casting a prez vote for her once she's eligible to run.

i think she's wonderful. one thing i especially like about her is that she seems adept at forming a posse of like-minded legislators. she's good at sharing her political fame and recognition and using it to boost others.

in before someone suggests she's nominated for president
xp fuck just missed it.

name has 5-4-2 syllable pattern: last name should have three syllables

left-handed, so she's pretty much limited to 1B or the outfield

Alexandria / Ocasio-Cortez is / a living haiku.

the 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.

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.

buuuuut, the great thing about AOC is that i would have more confidence in her than just about anyone else to bounce back quickly from a hypothetic major twitter fuckup. as our wise president says "we'll see what happens"

Left-handed? Excellent.

yeah i was going to say how bad can she really fuck up on twitter that will make what these assholes say about here matter to anyone but them?

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.

^^^^^^

like i was saying some people need to touch some grass

I'm in the same spot as budo jeru. For the last two days I was gaslighting myself thinking Imd missed something. She voted neither for the bill nor the amendment. Im not on Twitter much these days and I rarely read personal stafements.

otm it all feels a bit like a parody of lefty splittism.

Also, I can’t really imagine her running for president anytime in the near future. Maybe after a couple of terms in the Senate depending on how things go. So unless you live in New York State, you’re not going to have to worry about whether you can in good conscience vote for her despite this debacle.

lol typos

I don't think arguing that AOC's votes were fine and her statement on same irrelevant has anything to do with touching grass really, weird framing.

no one's arguing you touch grass. it's a suggestion

Yes waterface and I am saying physician heal thyself :)

it was also (mostly) referring to the whole "man her statement sure is clumsy to say the least"----> "OMG NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT"

what about smoking grass

smoke grass and touch thyself

That didn't really happen? Unperson didn't say her statement was clumsy, dunno if he thinks that or not, he is saying the US is terminally sexist so no women need bother trying.

I don't think that's true at all fwiw but it's not coming from anything AOC did.

xposts

Being able to summarize ilx threads, however, is unlikely to gain me any grass toucher cred.

you def have a hard time reading thats for sure

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51wcAMfae2L._SL350_.jpg

Get off my lawn

idk i think actions speak louder than words ... i guess i don't give a shit about her garbled statement

― budo jeru, Tuesday, July 22, 2025 1:48 PM (ten minutes ago)

i think it's a question of what you perceive the action to be -- i wouldn't assume that her vote on a bill that everyone knew had no hope of passing was actually about the basis of the bill as opposed to signaling tribal allegiance w/in the party

It was a few years ago now but I remember seeing some kind of focus group thing where a substantial proportion of the respondents indicated they would vote for a woman for almost every office, except the presidency. I can't recall if it was purely Dem voters or not, but I assume it would have been

ppl want their strong leader bloodthirsty patriarch

"man her statement sure is clumsy to say the least"----> "OMG NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT"

What I said had nothing to do with AOC's statement on not voting for Marjorie Taylor Greene's stupid poison pill. It was a larger point about the US political landscape, which is, to put it mildly, terminal and totally fucked.

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