Thats fine but she should be debating other politicians who have skin in the game. Some shock jock neocon teaparty guy is only going to be looking for sound bites to pummel her with.
Her ideas will eventually need to take a national stage, and with it challenges from both her own party’s center and the far right.
Republicans know that there is still a wedge between the centrist and Sanders wings of the DNC, and they are using that wedge to dampen the blue wave.
Thats fine but she should be debating other politicians who have skin in the game. Some shock jock neocon teaparty guy is only going to be looking for sound bites to pummel her with.
So if you just started a car insurance company in your state, would you allow people to open new policies with your company after they wreck? Would this be profitable for you to continue to pay out?
Her response was pathetic. She tried to play a victim, when she claimed Repubs were scared of her to debate. She's challenged and tries to equate that to sexual harassment. Which belittles people who have actually been sexually harassed. She is scared, because she knows she would get owned. She has owned herself so many times in the past few week, without any one's help. He is much smarter than her, knows politics much better than her.She is really just clueless, and is the worst thing that the Dems need right now. She's dividing them and its going to hirt them. Which is one reason CNN separated themselves from her recently.
No, my argument is what something fundamentally is. Not what we call it.
I would hope our politicians aren’t afraid to defend their positions no matter who it’s against. I wish the anti climate change politicians had to defend their positions for instance, and not just against other politicians. They answer to and serve the public, why would the only debate that matters be against others in the political class?
I would hope our politicians aren’t afraid to defend their positions no matter who it’s against. I wish the anti climate change politicians had to defend their positions for instance, and not just against other politicians. They answer to and serve the public, why would the only debate that matters be against others in the political class?
She never once said to "abolish college", those are your words and ridiculous. In my opinion, I do partly agree with you that the internet SHOULD make college way more affordable as everything moves online if the colleges don't collude to keep prices high. So maybe that problem will just fix itself. How much will AOCs college for all cost? You provide no numbers. I'll estimate $20T.
"This is large and expensive, at first." = Your Housing for all program. No numbers here? Large and expensive at first = what, 100T to buy everyone without a home a place to live? Loans? wtf. Who.is.paying.for.this? You say that the government will make money off of housing for all? How are they making money off of fed loans? AOCs position is that the housing should be free, yet you're talking about making money off of loans. Loans = private home ownership. Private home ownership is not what AOC wants, that leaves some people "oppressed" (the horror, I know) since they won't have housing. So you're not really addressing what she wants, b/c she says nothing about Fed loans for people to pay mortgages.
For UBI - You forgot to add inflationary costs. If everyone is getting $1000/month, do you actually believe that goods will cost the same?
We haven't even gotten to government jobs for all.
The problem is that if we've already raised taxes 25% to give everyone your UBI, where is the money for everything else coming from?
You don’t really believe that. Should Obama have gone and debated Trump and Alex Jones about his birth certificate? Should the president debate people who think aliens are anally probing hicks?
Right, all based on the name.
No, but Obama should certainly have been expected to field questions about the platform he was running on. I don’t think his platform was birth certificates and anal probes.
"Fielding questions" is an entirely different thing than participating in a "debate."
Honestly, if I were a politician, I would debate no one who wasn't my opponent in the actual race. I would, however, "field questions," for example, in a town hall format.
well you got the speedy stamp of approval, so that tells you all you really need to know.If by great, you mean in the dumbest possible way. Even by Libtard standards, it was a dumb response. She is going into the world of politics and her response to debating her political platform is the claim of sexual harassment. If she is elected, I feel sorry for any male constituents that would send her any unsolicited communications.
de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
This shouldn’t be something our officials are afraid of. They are the leaders that we entrust with representing us, we shouldn’t run defense for them. I don’t expect any politician to actually do it because, well, they’re politicians. They want their job and power and money and they’ll lie to you (and themselves) to get it. But debate isn’t a four letter word and is a fantastic way to ferret out the best ideas.
de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
This shouldn’t be something our officials are afraid of. They are the leaders that we entrust with representing us, we shouldn’t run defense for them. I don’t expect any politician to actually do it because, well, they’re politicians. They want their job and power and money and they’ll lie to you (and themselves) to get it. But debate isn’t a four letter word and is a fantastic way to ferret out the best ideas.
Nice try, but "fielding questions" is something entirely different than debate. For purposes of our discussion here, we can skip your misguided attempt at formal definition and just stick with whatever Ben Shapiro is proposing here, because that is the entire issue, whether she should accept his proposal or not.
No one here is arguing a politician shouldn't field questions. For crissakes.
And now, the obfuscation. I mean, what fear? And what obligates Ocasio-Cortez to give this twit the time of day?
Ok. He asked one.
Not sure, why did she say Republicans are afraid to debate her and then when one offers decline to do so.
I don’t disagreeThats fine but she should be debating other politicians who have skin in the game. Some shock jock neocon teaparty guy is only going to be looking for sound bites to pummel her with.
She says she is a socialist, he asked a very reasonable question that gets to the core of what she claims to be. I would hope she could answer.