Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 162

Thread: What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I would have to see the quote and the context before accepting your interpretation. Do you have a link?
    Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Cause of Low Unemployment - FactCheck.org

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default

    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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default


    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...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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,574
    Thanks
    46,725
    Thanked 68,572 Times in 51,893 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I would have to see the quote and the context before accepting your interpretation. Do you have a link?
    Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Cause of Low Unemployment - FactCheck.org
    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/sh...20#post5300320

    https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is...soning-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.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Doc Dutch For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (09-27-2022)

  6. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  8. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    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.

  9. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  10. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    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.

  11. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Poor Richard Saunders,

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    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...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.
    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.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  12. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    The funny thing is that you keep saying "unemployment rate" and AOC never said those words. She said "unemployment" without referencing the word "rate." You are correct in that 2-3 jobs doesn't affect the rate. I posted that earlier for a correction to a poster making that claim.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-28-2022)

  14. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I would have to see the quote and the context before accepting your interpretation. Do you have a link?
    i dont have a link but i have seen iy and that is a fair account of what she said.

    and as she was talking about the employer survey its correct as they count a job as a job irrespective of others. the household survey does not. this is why household is usually lower especiallt the one last month which was about a third of the employer tally.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  15. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    34,321
    Thanks
    3,498
    Thanked 11,601 Times in 9,273 Posts
    Groans
    632
    Groaned 1,405 Times in 1,371 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    .

    A college degree.
    Boobs
    AM I, I AM's,AM I.
    What day is Michaelmas on?

  16. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 667 Times in 469 Posts
    Groans
    21
    Groaned 74 Times in 66 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    .

    A college degree.
    A cock?

  17. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 667 Times in 469 Posts
    Groans
    21
    Groaned 74 Times in 66 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Think now: if one person is working 3 jobs, the employment tally does NOT list that one person...it just registers those 3 businesses have employees, which is part of the unemployment numbers (lower, that is).

    Remember the town hall meeting where a woman told the Shrub that she worked 3 jobs to make ends meet?

    Now "crazy" smart may be a bit of an exaggeration, but light years smarter than Bobbert or Green sure as hell isn't.
    That's... not how unemployment is measured. Looks like you're as braindead as her.

Similar Threads

  1. Boebert & Taylor-Greene
    By BartenderElite in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-03-2022, 11:59 PM
  2. Pelosi To Take Decisive Action Against Lauren Boebert
    By gemini104104 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-08-2021, 07:44 AM
  3. Colorado Paper Apologizes For The Embarrassment That Is Boebert
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2021, 04:30 PM
  4. Lauren Boebert apologizes to Muslims.
    By BattleofHodow in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-27-2021, 12:08 PM
  5. Boebert Reminds Everyone That She's 100% Trash
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-07-2021, 11:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •