Ocasio-Cortez Takes a Page from Trump’s Playbook

Part 1

nota bene said:

There wasn't much to "comprehend."

Click to expand...

Then how did you manage to screw it up so badly?

I posted to you what I did because the article answers all your questions.

Click to expand...

And I replied based on your summary. So, again, did you post a summary omitting the most important details? If so, how come?

You'd know this if you'd read the article rather than only my post.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm not in the habit of seeing people start threads where the main idea of the article isn't contained in the opening post. It's actually rather poor thread etiquette.

But okay, I'll answer despite your insinuating that I'm generally dishonest.

Click to expand...

When have you ever given me cause to think differently? This isn't our first discussion. Shall I remind you of the time you accused another poster of doing nothing but posting partisan comments in a thread started by a poster who continually started racist threads, threads you claimed to not have ever seen even though I linked you to many of them?

One recent example of Ocasio-Cortez creating media attention was her joining the protestors outside of Pelosi's office.

Click to expand...

Please point me to three examples of Donald Trump joining common people in protesting, since that was the premise of the thread. Three examples. Thanks.

She does make uninformed or silly comments fairly frequently (the article offers examples) which create attention too.

Click to expand...

But that's not her seeking attention, that's her receiving attention, which is not like Donald Trump. And that was the premise of your thread.

And if you're keeping up, you know that she isn't wealthy like Trump.

Click to expand...

So...not taking a page out of Trump's playbook, right?

So, basically, you created a thread and took a position which is in no way supported by facts or reality. Correct?

From the article you couldn't bother to read: "The head of the DNC not long ago referred to her as 'the future of the Democratic party.' She’s received fawning, glowing-to-the-point-of-incandescent coverage from the mainstream media and outsized critical attention from Fox News and other right-leaning outlets."

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware she gets media attention, but that is not taking a page out of Trump's playbook, as I said. In other words, you (and I guess the author) are literally making things up which are completely divorced from reality.

Did you notice that Goldberg is talking about the outsized attention she is receiving from both lefties and righties? This is key to his point, which has escaped you. It's not just right-leaners who are focusing obsessively on her. It's not just right-wing media paying attention to her. One reason, as Goldberg notes, is that she frequently says silly and untrue things. If you'd like examples, read the article.

Click to expand...

From your Opening Post:

You said:

Ocasio-Cortez is taking advantage of this and is playing for suckers both those who leap to criticize and those who reflexively rush to defend her:

Ocasio-Cortez, wittingly or not, has appropriated a technique mastered by President Trump.

Trump prefers positive attention, but he’ll take negative attention over no attention every time, in part because he knows his supporters will intensify their dedication to him in response to allegedly unfair attacks. AOC is doing the same thing. By forcing partisans to take sides, she generates controversy. Controversy attracts media attention. Media attention generates even more controversy. And so on.

As with Trump, sometimes she clearly knows what she’s doing

Click to expand...

But NOTHING you have provided even comes close to suggests AOC has "appropriated" any techniques of Trump, especially since the tone of your OP suggests it is being done intentionally. Which is what I said from the very beginning. And if the best evidence you have is that she has done things completely different from Trump which just happen to generate media attention, then you have nothing at all.

I'll go back to what I said originally:
What has she done to warrant all the media attention she gets? Unlike Trump, she hasn't made racist statements. Unlike Trump, she hasn't flagrantly violated the law. Unlike Trump, she hasn't shoved her wealth in people's faces.

The more accurate way to paint what is happening is that the right wing media is focusing obsessively on her, for reasons I still haven't understood.


And you STILL can't answer what she has done to warrant all the media attention and she has done nothing in the same way as Trump. Your position, which I assume is similar to the author's, is completely divorced from reality.

Part 2

Kal'Stang said:

Due to character limit and copyright reasons a person cannot always list everything that YOU feel may be important.

Click to expand...

If it is a central idea to the position being put forth in a post, particularly if the post is the OP, then it is generally understood to be important to include it.

Not including the main ideas of your premise is completely incongruent with Internet forum discussion.

If you want to know what is important then read the article.

Click to expand...

I'm not replying to the article, I'm replying to nota. And nota provided no evidence to support the position she put forth in the thread.

Hell, you should read the article anyways just so that you know what the hell you're talking about instead of choosing to remaining ignorant.

Click to expand...

I'm replying to nota, not the author of the article.

Again, when someone posts a thread, it is generally assumed they are posting their position, especially on this forum where I believe providing your own take on an opening thread is required (though, admittedly, I don't start threads so I could be wrong on that). As such, when I read an OP, I assume the person is putting forth the position they hold and, as such, it is quite appropriate to challenge them on it if they provide no supporting information.

This is Internet debating 101.

Slyfox, I have not posted a position, and I’m not required to. I clearly identified in my first two words that I was going to be talking about what Jonah Goldberg said about “_______ Derangement Syndrome” and how in a climate of extreme hostile partisanship, a person may be driven not so much by liking a candidate more but, rather, by disliking the “other side” even more, and how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is profiting from this just as Donald Trump has.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinions on what constitutes quality Internet discussion. I’d say that it begins by reading what someone actually posted rather than what you’d like to imagine and then reading the article referenced, which you couldn’t be bothered to do. If you want to talk about expectations, MY expectation is that someone who posts in response to an OP has actually read the entire OP, including the provided link.

What I hoped for was intelligent discussion of what Goldberg had to say—you know, his larger point, which you continue to miss. (Hint: It’s only partly about Ocasio-Cortez.)

nota bene said:

Jonah Goldberg addresses the curious phenomenon of the "_____Derangement Syndrome," crediting the late Dr. Krauthammer for the coinage, and says that while there are some who immediately leap to the worst/most outrageous of interpretations about someone they despise, sometimes the ones making the accusation are themselves the ones who refuse to see the facts, "taking comfort in the fallacy that the motives, real or imagined, of a critic automatically disqualify the criticism."

Because we live, he says, in a moment of extreme negative partisanship in which millions of people are motivated more by dislike of the other party than a fondness for their own, "being hated by the right people is the best way to get not just a big following but an intensely loyal one." Ocasio-Cortez is taking advantage of this and is playing for suckers both those who leap to criticize and those who reflexively rush to defend her:

Ocasio-Cortez, wittingly or not, has appropriated a technique mastered by President Trump.

Trump prefers positive attention, but he’ll take negative attention over no attention every time, in part because he knows his supporters will intensify their dedication to him in response to allegedly unfair attacks. AOC is doing the same thing. By forcing partisans to take sides, she generates controversy. Controversy attracts media attention. Media attention generates even more controversy. And so on.

As with Trump, sometimes she clearly knows what she’s doing, and other times she simply displays her ignorance. But at this stage, it doesn’t matter. The more right-wing partisans attack her, the more left-wing partisans rally to her. The more left-wingers rally to her, the more justified the Right feels in paying attention to her. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-controversy-playbook-right-left/

Click to expand...

Anybody with half a brain and a 1/4 of an eye on the media landscape in this country pretty much already sees these two as comparable. AOC knows her game and is damn good at it. Why we have to wait until those same Right wingers tell you is beyond me...I'll be waiting for the upcoming: "We knew Trump was a criminal this whole time," and the "Republicans just don't care anymore," articles from leading conservative "thinkers" in oh about a year or two.

Best think twice in the future before ever claiming someone isn't thinking for themselves. Because I honestly don't know why you need some right winger named Jonah Goldberg to tell you this...

ecofarm said:

Why are we comparing the President of the United States to a first term Representative.

Click to expand...

Cortez is the Left's bright shining star.