Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

[Mr swag]

Why are people talking about her? She will be a nobody. Didn’t she get a total of 6k votes in NEW YORK fukkING CITY?

 

[ineedsleep212]

Did you read the title here or the title on the actual article?

The title on the actual article is "Our socialist president". It's not a shot at AOC at all, and the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph makes clear that his only concern in the piece is Trump, not AOC.

And what Trump is doing IS akin to what the USSR did. Tying Trump to the Soviet Union isn't unfair at all in that regard.

I don't think Will is pro-status quo. He's grown into a fairly principled libertarian - anti-surveillance, anti-indefinite detention, anti-death penalty, path to citizenship for illegals. He even wants to restore Glass-Steagall and break up the "too big to fail" banks. He isn't just anti-Trump, before Trump he was anti-Gingrich, anti-Palin, and even opposed Bush on a lot of issues.

I'm never going to be a George Will fan because I'm not a libertarian. But I just think it's silly to call out a libertarian for not being a fan of socialism. If he had written an anti-AOC screed, then sure, go at him. But this is an anti-Trump screed, and all of his rationales for being anti-Trump are justified, so the mere fact that he casually drops AOC's name in the first paragraph before moving on to his real target is an unproductive thing to throw a fit about.

I'm a big proponent of applauding people as they move in the right direction. Conservative commentators criticizing Bush with justified criticism is a good thing. Ignoring the entire critique of Bush in order to complain that he briefly implied that he doesn't agree with AOC's policies is really missing the forest for the trees.

No one's saying it's unfair to compare Trump to the USSR, but the article is about calling Trump socialist and this is what you get with socialism.

What is the entire point of the first paragraph and the last paragraph if it's not to say folks are gravitating towards socialism (plus look how few votes it took for her to beat an incumbent in a primary cuz that was definitely necessary) but look Trump is actually socialist and this is the danger of socialism.

The title of the thread is basically the last line of the article. He could've easily talked about this without referencing her but even without it, it's

"Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything."

I'm sure calling Trump our SOCIALIST president is not meant to attach socialism to Trump and induce a negative connotation .

 

[ineedsleep212]

Why are people talking about her? She will be a nobody. Didn’t she get a total of 6k votes in NEW YORK fukkING CITY?

It's 16,000 and primaries are always like this everywhere. Sure she's a nobody. The nobody that has the entire right wing losing its mind.

 

[GPBear]

Did ya'all read a different article than me?


It was obviously an anti-Trump article. It didn't have anything to do with AOC, she was just a foil for his complaints about Trump's policies right now. Only the first paragraph mentions AOC and her actual policies aren't mentioned or criticized at all, every single bit of the rest of the essay is about Trump and Trump alone.

Yeah I know...

He was equating her political beliefs with Trump’s cronyism. Dragging her for no reason other than he dislikes left-wingers and women, and she’s the most prominent left wing female politician out these days.

I really could not care less about what George Will has to say about anything, so

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No one's saying it's unfair to compare Trump to the USSR, but the article is about calling Trump socialist and this is what you get with socialism.

What is the entire point of the first paragraph and the last paragraph if it's not to say folks are gravitating towards socialism (plus look how few votes it took for her to beat an incumbent in a primary cuz that was definitely necessary) but look Trump is actually socialist and this is the danger of socialism.

The title of the thread is basically the last line of the article. He could've easily talked about this without referencing her but even without it, it's

"Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything."

I'm sure calling Trump our SOCIALIST president is not meant to attach socialism to Trump and induce a negative connotation .

You're acting like it's some newsworthy event that a conservative attaches a negative connotation to socialism when mainstream Democrats attach a negative connotation to socialism.

The point of the first paragraph is to say, "Hey, all you Trump followers are trying to demonize AOC's use of the word 'socialism' like she's some big scary threat to freedom and democracy, when in fact it is YOUR candidate that is the real threat."

The entire article is attacking Trump, not AOC. Saying that your party's own figurehead is worse on freedom issues than even the extremist in the other party is an effective way to do that. Yeah, that causes her to catch a bit of a stray, but it's such a mild stray from such an obvious source that I thought it was ridiculous for people to make that the focal point of their response.