Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

	This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Speaking of racism

I guess we need to add the category to Nancy Pelosi now. [1] 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate link to the Ben Shapiro mud slinging site that stuffs words into AOC's mouth and idiot BoNs reproducing those, let's call them paraphrases, verbatim. On the other hand the actual things she does say aren't without merit. Nancy Pelosi has started to make a trend of singling out some specific newly elected young women of color for reprimand. More likely because they're representative of a different ideology than is present in long-serving dems, than specifically because of racial bias against the individuals. Suffice it to say, you aren't going to offend me by calling Pelosi racist, but you're not going to convince anyone of that merely by putting the words in someone else's mouth. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for a complete overhaul/reformatting of the article to make it more missional

As has already been mentioned several times on this talk page, the current article on AOC simply outlines her various policy proposals and in this, current form, I don’t consider it to be very missional.

As I mentioned back when an earlier version was deleted, a missional article on AOC would of course take her to task to the extent that she espouses authoritarian and/or crank ideas, but I’d consider its main relevance to be the extent to which AOC has become a focal point of various, usually wingnutty, conspiracy theories and general fear mongering. While she may have a lot of good policy ideas and suggestions, these are only missional insofar as they address, say, pseudoscience, crankery, authoritarianism etc. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Oookaay... Does anyone have some actual, constructive contributions? (PS. ) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The article certainly seems to have very little to do with the stated missions at the moment. I guess that RW could have a list of the policy positions of every major US, European, or international politician. But that wouldn't be part of the stated missions either.

Logically this article should point out any crank or anti-science position she might hold or any weird conspiracy theories people might hold about her.Hubert (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Then it would seem that we’re in agreement, @Hubert. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Then does she have any anti science views? Vaccinations? Alt-med? Conspiracies? Weird religions views? (OK, she's a US politician so I guess that religion would be just par for the course.) But I'm not from the US, so what do I know? Hubert (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. She claims in H.R 109 that slave reparations will get to net zero carbon emissions. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're blocked until you admit on your talk page that that page contains zero references to "slavery" or "reparations". Sorry thems the breaks, but unless you can apologize for lying, you're gone. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One wonders what "repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities" might be referring to. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't oppose racial and social justice. But what Rob is clumsily implying is that AOC ceaselessly meshes all these issues together, and he's right. "Promoting equity and justice" is obviously the right thing to do in a general sense, but it's also not an effective way of outlining climate policy. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If i might add, AOC likely has done more harm to the climate science agenda than good. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

Hey Rob, say you're completely wrong here, too, or else you're blocked. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should robrail this and get back to the missionality question. Sorry I got angry and worsened the derail. And nobs is giving us good examples of right wing conspiracy theories about her to document. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (Greenpeace), co-founder of Greenpeace, said of Ocasio-Cortez and the plan:

Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.[2]

^{— Unsigned, by: nobs probably / talk / contribs}

Patrick Moore is a lier and a garbage human being. Citing him means your either dishonest or stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, you're not on Conservapedia here. Why on Earth are you quoting a climate skeptic? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a shill gambit to call him a paid shill of major polluters, but patrick moore is a paid shill of major polluters. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Denier. Moore isn't a skeptic, he's a denier. He's basically the same as someone who denies the existence of gravity, yet refuses to jump off a building to test those beliefs. He's full of crap and he knows it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember when we used to say "climate skeptic" with a laugh. Not sure how a gravity skeptic would somehow be more legit than a gravity denier tbh. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you wanna be ironic about it, just say something like "spektick" or "skiptec" or something. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you all feel that way about him, why don't you cite him as a lead critic? I'm sure he's reputable enough. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Rob, you just asked why we don't cite a known fraud as a source. Shut up. You would have done better if you had said nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

if we can cite known morons for evidence, then we should be able to cite our asses for the lack of climate change. deal? because all climate "skeptics" either argue in bad faith, talk out of their ass, or jack off oil corporations. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect "cite as a lead critic" here is Nobsese for "include in a section about right-wing commentators". 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For fuck's sake, . — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me. I forgot. NPOV is not part of RW policy. Okay, go ahead. Leave the junk science in. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm scanning the Green New Deal document and in addition to promoting action on climate change it also proposes justice for indigenous peoples. Neither of which seem to be objectionable ideas.

But I don't see it saying that helping indigenous people is designed to reduce climate change. I see it saying that climate change would disproportionately affect indigenous peoples.

Could you quote the particular part you find objectionable Nobs?Hubert (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So silence follows. Or is Mr Nobs still reading H. RES. 109? Hubert (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

repairing frontline communitiesI've been tied up with the Bruce Ohr 302s/Muller bullshit; then I was nearly as surprised as Jeffrey Epstein himself over his apparent suicide this morning. So I can only give you a simple outline on the Green New Deal: The Whereas science Be it resolved doesn't follow logically; there is no scientific evidence that "repairing frontline communities" will keep global warming at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrialized levels. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 01:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. So you have already had to massively shift your ground on the slavery thing. But I don't see it saying ""repairing frontline communities" will keep global warming at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrialized levels" either.

You have linked to the article a couple of times so I assume you claim familiarity with it. Can you give the actual quote from the document where it says this or will you need more ground to shift onto?Hubert (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

So going back to the missionality thing

I agree this article is way off topic and just basically lists her political views. While we could keep some, particularly economic and enviromental policies that are her bread and butter it shouldn't be this long. Also for content here are a few conspiracy theories I found: AOC is an actress; a manufactorversy about Trump's violent rhetoric; one of her town hall meetings was interrupted by a woman that said we should start eating babies to deal with climate change; conservative men are obsessed with her; another manufactorversy over AOC calling the Dems a "center-conservative" party; that she's a constant target of hoax claims; hell the entire Daily Wire hastag has enough material to create an article. So I believe we should cut the political views to the most important (economics and GND) and start making parts about the creepy rightist obsession with her. Tuxer (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We should should talk about her presence in Congress, including her amazing debut speech exposing how dark money works; exposing corruption in Washington; her sharp questioning of Michael Cohen; blasting Mark Zuckerberg in a hearing. AOC is amazing and deserves better than this faux wikipedia article. Tuxer (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Snopes has a pile of stories about her: fake crying at migrants[3], calling for ban on 9/11 images[4], promoting electric cars in hurricanes[5], misspeaking[6], opposing open carry[7], enjoyed hearing "send her back"[8], called Xianity nonsense[9], said soldiers are overpaid[10], called the US garbage[11], fired from hot dog firm[12]. Some are true-ish, some total rubbish, but we should cover this kind of thing. --Annanoon (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that we're letting snopes do our job for us and then not even doing our job once they have kinda sucks. We should have been at the front end of all this bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Extreme?

"offering "economic security" to those "unwilling to work"

Offering basic security to all of your citizens should be the duty of every government. Many people fall through the cracks, can't get a job, or find that the jobs that are available have frankly piss-poor benefits. Many jobs often skirt around laws about health insurance, for instance, by only offering part time jobs. What's so extreme about favoring people over profits? Or maybe they're aware of piss-poor working conditions (think "Amazon factory workers pissing in bottles") and want no part of that. There are a lot of factors being arbitrarily excluded here. Carthage (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am also curious as to demographic variations in working conditions and hours, which this article fails to cover. Carthage (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are the study highlights

“”Living Paycheck to Paycheck is a Way of Life for Majority of U.S. Workers, According to New CareerBuilder Survey Study Highlights: - 78 percent of U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet - Nearly one in 10 workers making $100,000+ live paycheck to paycheck - More than 1 in 4 workers do not set aside any savings each month - Nearly 3 in 4 workers say they are in debt today - more than half think they will always be - More than half of minimum wage workers say they have to work more than one job to make ends meet

—Careerbuilder

Furthermore:

CHICAGO and ATLANTA, Aug. 24, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Do you countdown to payday? You're not alone. More than three-quarters of workers (78 percent) are living paycheck-to-paycheck to make ends meet — up from 75 percent last year and a trait more common in women than men — 81 vs. 75 percent, according to new CareerBuilder research. Thirty-eight percent of employees said they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 17 percent said they usually do and 23 percent said they always do.

Interesting! You deliberately exclude the "sometimes" category, the "usually" category, and the differences between men and women, and focus on those that always do. Care to explain why? Carthage (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. What is "sometimes"?Once a year? Only once? I'm was pretty sure that everyone would "sometimes" live paycheck to paycheck. I know I certainly do. This was a terrible survey if you want my opinion, the only interesting data is the one that claims that 23 ercent said they always live rent to rent. Also, the survey argues that this is not necessarily an income problem. To quote the study:

Having a higher salary doesn't necessarily mean money woes are behind you, with nearly one in 10 workers making $100,000 or more (9 percent) saying they usually or always live paycheck-to-paycheck and 59 percent in that income bracket in debt.

So, I don't think it even supports AOC's point, as one of the main findings is that people just spend way too much. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what they're spending on:

Internet connection: 54 percent Mobile device (smart phone, tablet, etc.): 53 percent Driving: 48 percent Pets: 37 percent Cable: 21 percent Going out to eat: 19 percent Traveling: 17 percent Education: 13 percent Buying gifts for people: 13 percent Alcohol: 11 percent

Mobile, internet, driving, education, all seem pretty important to everyday life.

The study also finds that a majority of minimum wage workers live paycheck to paycheck. Carthage (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant. These are things that people aren't aren't willing to give up. This is not how people are spending their income. If you want to mention that people earning the minimum wage live paycheck to paycheck I won't oppose, as long as you notice that the number of people that very few people people are minimum wage workers and the number is dwindling (most people earning the minimum wage are younger than 25).[13] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Carthage (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@GeeJayK The link says that 45% of those working at the federal minimum wage are aged 25 or under, what about the other 55%? It says only 3% of employed teenagers work at minimum wage or less, compared to 1% of those above the age of 25. I think logically assuming that this is a binomial distinction that the 55% of workers working for minimum wage are older than 25. There are just more working adults over the age of 25 so those individuals only make up 1% of the entire age 25+ workforce. I don't think what you linked actually says "Most people earning the minimum wage are younger than 25" It says only a little less than half of minimum wage workers are younger than 25. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

I also don't know if looking at minimum wage is the most useful metric here. Consider the following...

The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than two full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 96-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Single-parent families need to work almost twice as hard as families with two working adults to make a living wage. A single mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 252 hours per week, the equivalent of almost six full-time minimum-wage jobs, to make a living wage

[14] - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb Of course the minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families, as I've said before, the US should double it, and I don't think it would cause much unemployment and other tradeoffs. I think that's the point @Carthage was saying, people that earn the minimum wage can't pay their bills. I repeat, I won't mind if you or her want to put this in the article, though I think we should mention that people living under the minimum wage are a relatively small demographic group (though, since the American population is huge, the total number of people earning the minimum wage is still pretty big). Also, yes, I was wrong when I said that the majority of people working at the federal minimum wage are aged 25 or under but what I wanted to say (and here I'm quoting the link), is that they tend to be young. While this is not a defining evidence (we need to see the historical statistic to come to a conclusion) I'm pretty sure that, as people get older, they tend to earn more than the minimum wages since they become more experienced, educated and, of course, build a stronger business networking. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)