All of that must have been like... over a year ago? I havent posted any memes about AOC in many many months.

And while I admit that some of my early criticism of her was perhaps overblown and overly nitpicky, my central criticism of her ideas and what she stands for (politically) are still valid.



Regarding one specific point:


I cant let that fly. The GND would be completely pointless if its proponents werent seeking to eventually put its goals into concrete, enforceable legislation. And given the nature of these goals, I fail to see any universe in which the concrete, legislative measures coming out of it wouldnt cause catastrophic damage to our society (if ever implemented).


It's like... a self-described socialist publicizing an essay about why he thinks we must "seize the means of production", followed by one of his critics giving a list of reasons why this would be hugely problematic in practice - and then you come around and tell the critic that his criticism is 'disingenous' because the socialist's essay was "just stating a goal, not enforceable legislation".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 6 2019 09:32am

If you do a bit if research you find politicians doing similar things all the time. They can vote or write whatever when they know its not enforceable or not going to pass. Its why we had 50 votes to repeal obamacare in the house but nothing when Republicans got a majority. If you apply this across the board you would be criticizing every politician, not just AOC.

Similarly, when you walk in to negotiate you don't start at what you will settle for. You go higher and compromise at what you will settle for. The green new deal is only threatening if you go out of your way to remove all context. I dont think its realistic or good but its not a great point of criticism unless youre talking to somebody totally unaware of legislative reality.

There's a big difference between "entering negotiations asking for more than what you'll settle for" and "starting a conversation with demands which are technologically and/or financially impossible to make a reality".
There's a difference between "asking for something politically unlikely but theoretically feasible" and "utter insanity".

If she was making demands the legislation would have been written with enforcement. If it had been a complete bill with enforcement, mandated times and targets, and funding allocation I would agree that its utter insanity but youre ignoring that it had none of those things.

Ok Boomer.

and another one (i'm not mocking him, just a bit shocked by the cartoons circulating on internet)

remember how obsessed trump was with the world allegedly laughing at the president when obama was in office?