And a really unfair burden to put on her.

She's a prominent voice and an important one, but by no means is she THE voice of an entire generation.

that worked for Sanders and which she's still associated with. It would be a natural step for someone who'd just rocketed into the U.S. House of Representatives and was already deep in its learning experience. And she has shown signs of respecting and wanting to cooperate with her new colleagues.

But these men, who now run her DC congressional operation, as well as back in NY, are IT experts and social media manipulators. What they helped do to Hillary and our congressional and senatorial candidates in 2016, they could do to her if she tried to break free.

If they chose, of course. But they know Russia used them to help put Republicans in control of the nation, and they haven't denounced the Kremlin or shown any more respect for the Democratic Party than Trump has.

She was one of the first two members of the Justice Democrats board. The person who now runs her DC Congressional operation, her chief of staff, was the other (he was also her campaign manager).

that sounds like a right wing smear right there..

"russia".. good god, now that too?? wth??

Am I on a Dem site anymore or is this... i don't even know any of their sites anymore... is stormfront still around

“The solution is not unity with the corporate-backed Democrats…It’s time to rebuild the Democratic Party from scratch.”

That statement would not fly from a DU member on DU, precisely because it is a Dem site.

The Justice Democrats philosophy of "destroy to rebuild" makes as much sense as someone burning down their own house because the discovered a leaky faucet. It's dangerous vanity. I distrust anyone who's associated with that GOP-funded Cenk Uygur and any of his groups.

Yup. So unfair. Is she even old enough to tweet?

But your consistent use of it just looks childish.

If you say so.

This is not just an alteration of lol. This word is unique in the fact it is only used when laughing at the expense of another.

A use of the word is "I did it for the lulz!" referring to the act of harm, disruption, or general pranks and shenanigans to a group, someone or something. These acts are commonly used to offend or shock viewers and readers.

Interesting.

When you have nothing to rebut an argument with, but want "the last word."

Odd.

Perhaps google would help.

You say google, but I don't think that word means what you think it does.

There see, I mixed it up a bit.

All I can do here is chuckle at the absurd posturing. It isn’t like there is an actual discussion going on. Make a serious point and I’ll respind seriously.

Otherwise I’ll just Lulzd, thanks.

Tag, you're it!

Anyone born before June 15, 1946 can't tweet.

of it. I use reply all’s yes yes yes segments to get some clues.

These kids.

Really?

You must be very influential.

"We need loyal members who'll promote the Democratic agenda and platform and all new loyal members ... "

Who determines the "Democratic agenda"?

Democratic agenda has not materially changed since the days of FDR. Progress may have been slow due to the WH or one of the chambers not under democratic control but steady progress has been made over social justice, inequality, LGBT rights, health care, safety nets and environment.

Just because some democrats try to grab photo ops and launch twitter grenades does not mean they are more passionate about these things and only they have an agenda. Thinking that way would take away the credit from past and present democrats who work for these issues every day, albeit silently.

Making noise about the items doesn't mean one is more effective or striving harder. It only means one is making a lot of noise.

the Democratic Party platform, developed by Democrats, very easily online.

they're the smartest person in any room, and everyone should just shut up and do what they say concerning the Democratic Party agenda, and anyone who doesn't fall in line is corrupt. They see disloyalty to them as being disloyal to progress itself.

However, that's the way the GOP and does it, and we don't.

Democrats welcome even those who want to take over and dictate the party platform into the group that together sets that platform and agenda.

Democrats are a coalition of groups, and they are all listened to. The platform lays out the goals combined from those groups - because we know that the goals are important thing, and we'll often need to adjust the tactics and strategies to get there as new information comes in, national events occur, administrations change, our demographics change, media and information change, etc.

The Democratic agenda is derived from the platform. Specific legislative agendas will change as needed. For instance, right now we do need to investigate Trump, since we have control of the House. We cannot make everything in the platform the immediate priority, because resources are finite, and there are only so many hours in a day.

Someone can disagree with a particular legislative priority, however, in order to get anything done, we need cooperation and teamwork. So there is a person in the House who is elected by their peers to determine the best way forward to get the agenda implemented into law. That person is called the Speaker of the House, or Minority leader depending on if we are in the majority or not, and leads the Democratic Caucus in the House. There is a similar leader in the Senate.

Fighting against the Caucus' agenda is usually counterproductive, as teamwork is the only way anything gets done.

I couldn't agree more. Golly, she only got into office by sitting back and letting super pacs elect her. These darn millenials don't know what its like to put in a good days work. I don't get me started on how they don't respect their elders!

Still waiting for you to list which democrats she called "awful" and "corrupt" and "do-nothings" and "don't care about climate change."

I ask again, why do you get to spread lies about democrats unabated? Just because you've been here awhile and therefore have some clout?

??

In fact, I'm glad she's there because I hear she has some great ideas to help improve on the work we've already done on it. I just wish all of those swooning fans throwing flowers at her and singing "Hosanna!!!" at the top of their lungs would simmer down and either pitch in or get out of the way so she can actually get to work.

Not a big turnout.

But nope.

....many with long and distinguished careers as lawmakers.

Voters in New York were confused last year. The major primary in NYS in 2018 was in September, for Governor and the other state-wide offices. Many of the voters were unaware of the fact that there were TWO primaries, the September primary and the much less known primary for Congressional seats in June.

Turnout for the general election was about 2/3 that in 2016.

Aren't state and federal primaries always on separate dates in NY?

To give people an idea of how little known the June primary is, in 2018 turnout state-wide in the two Democratic primaries were:

11% in June
23% in September.

All those voters were confused too?

....(2012 was only three primary cycles ago)

If it wasn't confusing turnout in June wouldn't have been less than half that in the traditional September.

That’s even worse than I thought.

in the ranks.

Good for her.

Link to tweet

B. I. N. G. O.!

Or just another bumper sticker?

She accounted for more Twitter interactions in a month than the top five media companies combined, according to CrowdTangle data, reports

It's simply evidence of popularity.

(if you're unaware of what evidence is and what is required of it, Understanding Evidence by Paul C. Giannelli is a great primer)

And actually, not even a sign of popularity but of an ability to generate a reaction. Trump probably generates more Twitter engagement, but that doesn't mean he's more popular then Ocasio-Cortez or the voice of his generation.

Jeez... as much as I've come to dig her charisma as well as her positions over the past two months, seems she's hitting Sacred Cow territory with a lot of people.

And that guy that went to the suicide forest?

I’m not sure “social media stardom” is really anything to brag about lol.

But that doesn't make them "voices" of their generation

AOC's generation will outnumber Trump's by next year. BUt they're severely lacking in Congress.

....can be artificially manipulated by outside sources.

Some of the most knowledgeable and influential people I know don't have Twitter accounts.

There is indeed a world beyond social media.

Well there you have it!

I've seen many tweets referencing her that you might not want to count as complimentary.

As does DT.

And nothing on AIM.

That made me LOL, which made the cat angry at me, who then jumped off my lap and now my legs have fresh claw marks on my legs.

Thanks a lot.

as if they were the FIRST to say this or that or think of this or that, and they have NO original ideas, by the way.

They push good ideas but none of them are original.

It is the pretending that they are that is annoying to the people who have worked on this shit for 40 years.

That's a pretty bold claim.

Go ahead and close your eyes. I doubt you'll miss anything ...

Like you're not even going to limit to what she has done since the primary.

Well. she won 2nd place Intel's science and engineering international fair, so I'm going to say there was something there that was original. She had a Lopez Fellowship at Boston U. I bet that doesn't come from not having original ideas. She graduated with honors from Boston U. Are you saying that happens with no original thoughts?

Come on. You're better than that.

I guess technically answers my question. But since we were talking about ideas pushed by Members of Congress, which presumes policy or legislative ideas, not an unidentified idea you think they had as part of a prize-winning project they did 12 years ago in high school, it really doesn't.

But that's probably more face-saving than just saying you couldn't come up with anything.

And, nope, the time for "it's just hyperbole" would be when I said it was bold claim and asked again if the claim was that she didn't have one single original idea.

Because the post I responded to (which isn't yours, I know, but you seem to feel the need to be the champion of that person) said, "as if they were the FIRST to say this or that or think of this or that, and they have NO original ideas, by the way. They push good ideas but none of them are original."

Add to that, AOC has never claimed that the ideas she is advocating for are her own. Though she does put some new spin on some of them as well as doing a fantastic job of giving them visibility that others have not been able to do.

And she has actually been sworn in for, what, a couple weeks? Let's give her some time before we judge her as unimaginative and unable to come up with any original ideas.

Oh, how about the "War. What is it good for?" video in response to those that hated her dance. That was pretty damn original and slammed those critical of her pretty well.

I still don't get what isn't to like about this fantastic young Democrat. She's smart, she's passionate, she's progressive, and she brings a lot of people that aren't always active politically into the mix.

And she has actually been sworn in for, what, a couple weeks? Let's give her some time before it be demanded that she be called the "voice of her generation," or even an effective legislator.

What are the metrics you have on "a lot of people that aren't always active politically" being "brought into the mix."

Can you clarify that definition of the demographic, and what "brought into the mix" means?

You do realize she is engaging millennials (and others)? Take a look at her Twitter reach if you don't understand that.