irrelevant to majority of democrats if she continues uncontolled.

Her usefulness as an attack dog on GOP and trump by democratic leaderhip has huge upside. Needs to be coordinated so message doesn't go off the rails

...and wisdom where I find it.

I'm not going to assume anything about the knowledge of these folks judging them by their age like that's some kind of tell.

The line about her being 'uncontrolled' is curious. Legislators aren't elected assuming senior legislators are their boss. I'd like to see you try and control this woman. What a ridiculous notion.

...softly.

The old guard will get over it.

We need more AOCs.

A coordinated messaging voiced by AOC is the smartest and best use of her. The focus is not on democratic "old guard" but the GOP/trump blight on america. The democratic old guard didn't vote for Jill Stein and didn't sit 2016 election out......it was the young ones just like AOC

If want her to have any lasting effect whatsoever....

Start rising to her level people. If you watched the video she pointed out how normal a 70% tax above $10 million once was, even under Republicans. She reminded Colbert’s audience that we once had a 90% marginal tax rate for some at the receiving end of our uneven system.

Alexandria is blowing away the smoke and mirrors. And she’s on our side!

Please argue on the merits of her ideas, not her style and her youthfulness. And don’t treat her, or any Democrat, like chattel.

Finally someone on "our side" is explaining this in clear and concise and accurate terms. I've been screaming for years whenever any tax discussions come up "WHY IS NOBODY POINTING OUT HOW MARGINAL TAX RATES WORK?!?!?!" Finally someone is.

More than anything the way she is bringing transparency to the process is great. Instead of telling voters some condescending variation of "Oh don't worry about it. We got this. You wouldn't understand how it works. We know better." she's saying "Here's how it's done. This is what I am going through. Join me."

If people can't see how this is a good thing and benefits our side then I don't know what to tell them.

It's also amazing how so many who have lectured us about "ageism" when levelling any criticism at Speaker Pelosi, are the first ones to dismiss AOC and anyone who dares question the status quo as "young" or "inexperienced".

It's like the parent-child relationship that should have been shelved some years ago, isn't it?

especially the ones yelling we !!!

or to offering constructive criticism to younger Dems, we're told to back off, we need their votes so don't offend them, etc. But when it comes to our own "Old Guard," it's fair game to step all over them, gently or otherwise?

Aren't they entitled to at least as much -if not more - respect and deference as the folks who just got here or are still on the other side?

She's not throwing spittle about how "All Democrats are Corporate Lackeys." It's just uncontroversial, popular stuff.

That is a proud and important tradition for future leaders.

I am admittedly a fan. That does not mean I think she is perfect or the "savior." I value and respect what our currently leaders are doing, especially Pelosi. There is room and an important role for "young punks" and the "old guard."

(Except Republicans and bullies)

Just how in the hell does one control ANY WOMAN?

Lord have mercy!

devisive .."I don't give a f--- what the Democratic Party pushback" yada yada. The Republicans, including Trump and Putin will be clapping their hands over our infighting.
Honestly not sure of details in how the nomination process works. It is very important to allow all who want to run run, but the Party needs specific benchmarks to enable the reduction of candidates during the nomination process.

because our Congress people end up acquiring a great deal of wealth in their positions and as they do, they do not have the same urgency to shake up the system.

She has been very vocal about Climate Change for one thing, but as a self-proclaimed socialist she is treading where Democrats had been backing out of.

Here's a link to see what her platform looks like:

https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-platform-on-the-issues-2018-6

.....and Democrats have been promoting them for years.

For example, a version of "Medicare for All" was introduced way back in the early 1940s, and has been re-introduced in just about every Congressional Session since then.

I think you know that. The left has always chided the Democrats who have buckled for the sake of compromise, and this time around they recognize that with the changing demographics, it's time to "rilly mean it this time."

It' all about commitment. That's why Ocasio presents a threat to those who don't see the urgency.

That said, I think she and Pelosi will turn into great allies.

....overall the only way to get legislation passed and make progress (the foundation of the word "progressive&quot is compromise. Compromise isn't "buckling".

Not to mention that compromise has historically meant dumping the needs of the ones that need it most. And the more the Ocasios in this country continue to resonate with this crowd, the more that Ocasio's will rise in this country.

She is only one now. Listen to her or she'll grow in numbers.

This is the mission statement:

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;

- - -

I see the word: social change. Do you know what Ocasio brings to the table? A demand for social change. We have already tried it with compromise, but now with Democrats in power in the House, we can try something new.

...have always been advocates of social change. This is nothing new.

Even the Thesaurus views the two words as synonyms.

If you still don't get it, I can't help you. I don't know how old you are, but if you have been around for the last twenty plus years, watching the trends in DC, you would recognize that Democrats tend to buckle. Ocasio won't. That is the kind of change people will vote for in the future. Even Kamala Harris gets it. People want someone who will fight for them.

How's that been working out?

Maybe time for a new approach, ya think?

....rounds up support for it and hopefully gets it passed. Then it goes to the Senate.

I doubt very much that anyone can do a better job of that than John Dingell, his son, and then his daughter in law. They worked (and Debbie still works) with their colleagues to garner support.

It's like any other piece of legislation, one needs support in one's own chamber and then support in the other chamber. No one goes it alone or bucks their own party to accomplish anything.

So, what better way is there?

Do you understand how our two party system works? Do others understand how it works?

Let me recap the past 50 years for you:

Democratic party routinely votes for and advocates for progressive, liberal policy.

Republican party routinely and vigorously works to stop all progress by the Democratic Party

If she wanted to bring urgency, she would actually write legislation to amend the current code, send it to the appropriate committee and build a consensus to get that legislation passed.

Going on talk shows and sending tweets is wasted breath and noise pollution. It makes some people feel good and think like someone is doing something to address their concerns not realizing that the entire Democratic caucus is actually working silently to make things happen; silently because people who do the actual work rarely have time to go on one talk show after another.

are all older than AOC. Are they wiser too?

just greedy and all criminals

Excellent!! The argument ends right here. No more discussion needed about old and wise. I love her fire and energy. The woman is very intelligent and young people have the most to lose about any future they hope for. IN politics, the older and longer you are there, the more cash and persuasion they get corrupted by and get further from the plight of average citizens. Rock on AOC.

She is a brilliant young woman with courage and enthusiasm who knows that her first loyalty lies with constituents. She is a least as intelligent as many within the party who are trying to control her. If we are going to win the Senate, then the “senior” Dem Senators better read the updated, 2018, playbook which she helped write.

I agree with a lot of what she says, but not with attacking the Dems now. These are not normal times. AOC should be attacking the repubs big time and talking to the Dems about what bothers her.

If she came on to this forum anonymously, she would probably get banned for talking bad about fellow Dems.

I bet she wouldn't last 10 posts before being banned as a disrupter.

Most of us agree with much of she says, but right now the focus needs to be on Trump and the republicans. I appreciate her energy and enthusiasm, but being relatively inexperienced, she needs to learn to pick her fights. It is easy for anyone to get caught up in all the media attention, but often the brightest flame burns out the fastest. She might want to stop, look, and listen a bit more.

When Al Franken went to DC, he kept a low profile in the beginning and focused primarily on his constituents. He avoided national news interviews and the attention that went with it. He wanted the voters of Minnesota to know that he was serious and that they were his primary concern. Once he was established, he began to speak out more. The people of Minnesota knew he was representing them and their issues first and foremost.

Those are not her words ..

😔

Hate the way this article is framed

She answered non-verbally "zero" when the question was posed to her. The headline is a real example of fake news, or at least fake headline writing.

People want to play up a division between AOC and the rest of the party. I guess in modern politics, it means she scares people because she is being effective.

Good Job AOC!!!!!

...as a way of protecting their political ground.

Or we can acknowledge that there are entrenched interests in Congress, not just in the opposition, opposed to many progressive changes demanded by voters, and work to confront and move past them.

Hill with a large grain of salt.

They are notorious for intentionally trying to mislead

...and doesn't change a thing.

...get a grip.

No one cares who says "fuck" anymore.

Besides, you'd be hard pressed to claim she wasn't responding directly to Colbert's premise.

I never use the word, and it's still very offensive.

...meaning is everything in language, to me.

Much less, literality.

I like to watch Bill Maher and John Oliver, and I hate when they drop f-bombs, because they are literally not needed.
I don't really care how emphatic it makes a point, I find it offensive.

I remember a famous comedian back in the 80's (I believe it was David Brenner), who once said, that a true
comedian should be able to do a show without swearing, because swearing makes for an easy laugh.

I've never forgotten that and every time I watch a comedian, I apply that standard.
Both Bill Maher & John Oliver don't need to drop f-bombs because they're both very funny without swearing.

...are in descriptions of things which are past the point of conventional explanation.

It denotes the end of rationalization, past the point of caring. It's more descriptive of that state of reasoning than most words, and it's relatable, in that vein, to many in my generation and beyond.

I like the way our current usage of language unravels many social mores which don't really relate to the things they're applied to. For instance, it's crude to vocalize about sexual intercourse in coarse terms, but it's really not crude at all to express exhaustion of limits, or indifference, as the term is applied here.

If Colbert had asked this question:

“...your own party saying ‘wait your turn, go slow, don't ask for so much so fast right now, you're new, wait your turn for everything and don't make waves,'"

“On a scale from zero to some, how much do you not care about making waves?"

It's not as funny (again, cheap laugh), but it does make the same point.
And, I don't care how it's applied, I find it extremely crude and offensive,
more when it is used "... to express exhaustion of limits, or indifference ...", because it's not needed.

What do you tell a child when they ask, "Mom/Dad, what does f#$k mean?"
Mom/Dad: "Oh, it just an expression of exhausted limits or indifference."

That's really not what it means, is it.

...this generation is taking that negative connotation away from the term and using it in a slightly different context.

It's not 'needed,' it's just that the context it used in has taken all of the negative meaning out of it (notwithstanding, of course, sensibilities of folks like yourself).

I imagine the reaction was the same to the use of several accepted terms that we use regularly today which were considered offensive in the past.

AOC is of a new generation, one that the Democrats need to turn out in large numbers to win. Let her speak like others in her generation do.

I swear like a mf sailor. I've been on job interviews where the word fuck was used all the time (by the interviewer).

I agree with AOC, but she never dropped the F-Bomb in that interview, Colbert did.

Also, if I was conducting the interview, and the candidate dropped the F-Bomb during the interview, that's enough to disqualify the candidate. Like it or not.

I certainly wouldn't use it, giving or taking the interview.

Not very professional.

I'm in a line of work (political campaigns) that most people leave by 30 as it is not well suited for family life.

The first question the guy asked me was "How the fuck did you survive Old Company From Hell?" (He also worked there). I took the job did very well in the position and with the campaign.

I was born in 1980. The guy interviewing me was born in 1992. We're in a new generation when it comes to profanity. Women are marching in the streets wearing a hat named after female genitalia.

As more of AOC's generation assumes power, you will see it more and more.

That language is vulgar and offensive.
No other way to put it.

I've never once been offended by foul language. If I was offended by the word 'fuck' at work, I'd be known as an uptight pearl clutcher.

It is a matter of knowing your audience. I think there's a big generation gap in what language is acceptable.

I opened the app on Buzzfeed (millennial and gen z audience) today. Here are some headlines
"27 movies that are 100% good even though most movie critics think they're shitty"
"27 times tumblr was funny as hell about The Avengers"
"21 Wild AF (as fuck) things actual people have believed about sex"
"15 reasons Gen Z is the worst fuckin generation"
"47 things that will make it look like you have your shit together"

You'll find profanity in the actual articles like it is no big deal (which to their audience, it is not).

The f bomb, I guess some of them renounced their boomertude over the years and are pretending they weren’t smoking dope and fucking like rabbits. I don’t guess actually, it’s just a fucking fact.

...she answered a question that wasn't framed by her. She got bashed for it.

to trigger a seizure in someone?

Her hunger for celebrity status may be her downfall, although I hope not. We may never get to learn about her real leadership skills.

Go figure.

that the one who tweets the most works the hardest.

How many tweets per day?

ever helped anyone get elected to any office I can think of.

gives the impression that Representative Ocasio-Cortez said "I give "zero" f---s about pushback from other Democrats "

as though that was her exact response.

the "f----s" came from Cobert.

She simply answered, "I think its zero"

In other words she said I don't care what they think in my approach.


she did NOT say I give "zero" f---s about pushback from other Democrats "

funny how The Hill thinks they are SOOOOOO clever by putting the "zero" in quotes, and concatanating the unquoted part with it no doubt to mislead exactly what she said.

From my perspective, "F**K The Hill".

and that is a direct quote from me

...to reflect the small distinction.

I don't think it's something she or anyone else should be ashamed of saying, so I really don't understand all of the grief.

disagree, with you regarding The Hill’s parsing

Attributing the “f—-s” to Cortez is intentionally present her in an inflammatory way to stir things up

I find inflammatory headlines without facts are a real problem ... it’s clickbait and yellow journalism

..well, yeah.

Yellow journalism? lol.

...the term is overused and meaningless in this context.

eom

...lol.

"The phrase was coined in the 1890s to describe the tactics employed in furious competition between two New York City newspapers, the World and the Journal." ...

That's pretty much the state of the media today, in total.

the Hill continues to try to divide Dems and lies to do so.

But "the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party" is stretching it pretty far, dontcha think, Boo?

Or are you just pulling our legs?

But I love what she is doing and the energy she is bringing to the party.

Not to mention her confidence, her mastery of social media, and her refusal to back down on critically important issues.

I have been singing her praises here for a while now, and I am more and more impressed with her as time goes on.

the headline more inflammatory than her actual response?

It was more in response to seeing the video clip in the OP.

Not even close.

more and more!

Or something.

I wish we had 100 more of her in Congress.

Oh my yes...... de-sanitize MLK - say it.. all corporatists would HATE him today

her supporters seriously. Now some phantom contrived “corporatists” are going to start hating MLK?! zOMG

here is a hint on those apparitions, their not party specific

A comment to understand her detractors... who constantly tell a young, progressive WOC who focuses on policy to sit down & STFU.. I get why you fear her, I would too if I were you..

MLK must have seen "phantoms" as well..

Thanks.

delusional. To bring up corporations as a way to think you are making a point is just a hollow and empty echo chamber. Stunning comment, though, lol.

but nice try at conflating the two..

My point stands, phantoms that try to stifle progress have existed throughout our history.. where one chooses to fight defines them.. choose wisely

insult. Everyone’s supposed to shake in their boots re: corporations. Now you are walking it back by trying to obfuscate. Silliness at this point, but more proof why it’s hard to take her supporters seriously.