looks, intelligence, a clue.
What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
looks, intelligence, a clue.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
I have attacked no one in particular, yet offered sound criticism where it was due.
That is what woke is all about. Concern for those members of society who are economically attacked by the rich and powerful, and characteristically attacked by the prejudiced and hateful.
I have attacked no one in particular, yet offered sound criticism where it was due.
That is what woke is all about. Concern for those members of society who are economically attacked by the rich and powerful, and characteristically attacked by the prejudiced and hateful.
A person does not have to be prejudiced or dislike AOC to correct her description of how unemployment is determined. The topic was unemployment rate and had nothing to do with compassion, people struggling, or making ends meet. Misunderstanding the unemployment rate gives no help to any of these problems. Everything is not about partisan explanations; sometimes, truthful explanations and knowledge is the point.
Attacking anybody is an unacceptable microaggression (to the really woke). Microaggressions do not just apply to those who are not rich and powerful but to attacks on every person assuming you still favor civil discourse.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello LurchAddams,
It did get Hillary 3 million more votes. America preferred Hillary.
The people who tacitly support Trump because they fear Democrats more than Trump are not quotable public figures so it would be impossible to offer examples, but that doesn't mean they can't be nice people.
And in general, so many of them turned on Trump in 2020 that he lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Many of those who voted against Trump are Republicans.
Here are Republicans, being nice, and critical of the cult:
It did get Hillary 3 million more votes. America preferred Hillary.
The people who tacitly support Trump because they fear Democrats more than Trump are not quotable public figures so it would be impossible to offer examples, but that doesn't mean they can't be nice people.
And in general, so many of them turned on Trump in 2020 that he lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Many of those who voted against Trump are Republicans.
Here are Republicans, being nice, and critical of the cult:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
And sometimes getting hung up on a small thing makes it possible to miss the big picture.
And sometimes getting hung up on a small thing makes it possible to miss the big picture.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Are you attempting to establish that it is inappropriate to criticize the Republican party?
Are you attempting to establish that it is inappropriate to criticize the Republican party?
I would have to see the quote and the context before accepting your interpretation. Do you have a link?
Sure, but the big picture was not the topic, it was how we calculate the unemployment rate. Sometimes it is necessary to understand the basics of the system before we can understand the big picture.
If we think unemployment is falling because people are working 2-3 jobs that creates a very different big picture than more realistic explanations.
Nope, I was (kiddingly) following your call for everybody to be "woke."
From your link -
We reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, but we did not get a response. Chodorow-Reich, who served as an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, told us via email it is possible to interpret Ocasio-Cortez’s comment in a more favorable light.
“For example,” he said, “if she meant ‘The unemployment rate is low but that doesn’t mean the economy is at its potential because many people don’t have a solid job and instead are forced to work two jobs to make ends meet’, you could find economists willing to agree or disagree with the statement.”
The statement taken out of context is false. The statement in context could have different meanings which make it not false.
When looking at the actual video, it's clear she isn't saying that unemployment is based on number of jobs people have.
https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/
The question is asked at about 5:45 in the video. Her response in context is...
Reporter: You talk about the top vs the bottom not the left vs the right. Now the economy is going pretty strong, right? There's roughly 4% unemployment, 3.9% unemployment. Do you think that Capitalism has failed to deliver for working class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working class Americans.
AOC: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about are part of the problem, right? Because we look at those figures, and we say, "Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine, right? Well unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids. And so, I do think right now when we have this no-holds-barred Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.
In context, she clearly is not saying that is how unemployment works. She is saying that people are working more than they should to survive. You can attack her for her choice of words that are wrong when taken out of context but you can't say she doesn't know how unemployment is calculated when you actually watch the video.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
People say stupid shit all the time. Remember "Bushisms"? "57 states"? It's not the misstatement that matters. It's the collective statements of a person that matters.
Does anyone here really believe that Boebert is smarter and a more critical thinker than AOC? AOC's biggest problem is her youthful idealism. She'll easily outgrow that to an extent. Boebert is an example of Ron White's "You can't fix stupid"....or concrete thinkers. LOL
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?194634-A-simple-question&p=5300320#post5300320
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-abstract-reasoning-5181522
What Is Abstract Reasoning?
Abstract reasoning, also known as abstract thinking, involves the ability to understand and think with complex concepts that, while real, are not tied to concrete experiences, objects, people, or situations. This type of reasoning involves thinking about ideas and principles that are often symbolic or hypothetical.
Abstract reasoning is considered a type of higher-order thinking. This type of thinking is more complex than the type of thinking that is centered on memorizing and recalling information and facts....
...Abstract vs. Concrete Reasoning
One way of thinking about abstract concepts is to contrast them with concrete ones. Concrete reasoning is tied to specific experiences or objects that can be observed directly.
Research suggests that concrete thinkers tend to focus more on the procedures involved in how a task should be performed, while abstract thinkers are more focused on the reasons why a task should be performed.
It is important to remember that you need both concrete and abstract reasoning skills to solve problems in day-to-day life. In many cases, you utilize aspects of both types of thinking to come up with solutions.
The "more favorable light" interpretation is more of a subjective (and partisan) evaluation of the economy. It does not change the fact that the unemployment rate does not decline if a person is working 2-3 jobs.
And your interpretation of her statement in context isn't partisan? Perhaps you need to examine your biases. The question was not about unemployment and how it was counted. It was about the bottom vs the top and whether capitalism was failing those at the bottom.
I'm not biased against AOC. I was responding to the post about determining the unemployment rate. That information is something I can learn from. Because you are sympathetic to her views about inequality does not make her information about the unemployment rate more acceptable. It just provides an opportunity for partisan cliches.
Citing the same old stuff about the evil rich v. the poor working class is tiresome and repetitive and nobody learns anything.
You are not biased and then proceed to show your bias? Did you bother to go look at the actual video? Her "information" wasn't information at all. It wasn't intended to be information. It was a comment on the way people have to work 3 jobs or long weeks to make ends meet. Taking part of that answer out of context doesn't suddenly make her contextual statement false. Rather it is an attempt to make her statement be something other than what was intended.
I did not show any bias because I expressed no opinion regarding her views, only whether people holding 2-3 jobs affect the unemployment rate. If she did not say that, then it doesn't matter; however, some JPP posters said that does affect the employment rate. I was addressing that point regardless of who said it.
I am not aware of any period in U. S. history when some people did not have to work 2-3 jobs to make a living.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Poor Richard Saunders,
Good point. She was never asked the question: "Why is unemployment low?"
She was not answering that question.
She was asked if capitalism is no longer the best vehicle for working class Americans.
It could be argued that she was trying to say that it is indicative. If unemployment was high, people wouldn't be able to get so many jobs.
I agree, the way she said it, if you take that sentence out of the context, as a stand alone sentence, it is incorrect.
But overall, she made her point well in explaining why her message of representing the working class in speaking truth to big money and power was resonating in her campaign.
I'm surprised Flash didn't jump on the statement she made later on about the USA not having been a capitalist nation when the USA first began. She didn't explain that, but I wonder if she was thinking about slavery, which is definitely not capitalist.
Good point. She was never asked the question: "Why is unemployment low?"
She was not answering that question.
She was asked if capitalism is no longer the best vehicle for working class Americans.
It could be argued that she was trying to say that it is indicative. If unemployment was high, people wouldn't be able to get so many jobs.
I agree, the way she said it, if you take that sentence out of the context, as a stand alone sentence, it is incorrect.
But overall, she made her point well in explaining why her message of representing the working class in speaking truth to big money and power was resonating in her campaign.
I'm surprised Flash didn't jump on the statement she made later on about the USA not having been a capitalist nation when the USA first began. She didn't explain that, but I wonder if she was thinking about slavery, which is definitely not capitalist.