AOC: The true face of the DNC

@Raiders22

 source of context?

@Raiders22

 Oh no question in my mind that Harris is by far and not even in the same universe better than Trump at public speaking. She has more experience interacting with the public on the fly than Trump does but aside from that Harris is much younger and less obtuse than Trump. Donny thinks for some bizarre reason that his interpretation of reality is correct and he is completely wrong in this regard. I have no respect or time for racists like Trump and abusers of women like Trump. I would take Harris every single day over Trump and most of his cabinet.

You are partisan and completely ignore the disaster which is Trump and then have the audacity to put down Harris over and over. At least Harris knows where Rome is, we cannot say the same for Trump.

@nature1970

You can find most of them anywhere. Wikipedia even. Or just use chatgp and it will show you the sources it grabs it from.  
If you cannot find what you are looking for I can put it together for you. 

For example this is one they list with the sources:

Institutions

• Documentation Center of Cambodia

• Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Scholarly works

• The Pol Pot Regime – Ben Kiernan

• Voices from S-21 – David Chandler

Common estimate: 1.5–2 million (about 21–25% of Cambodia’s population).

@wallstreetcappers

 I get you may prefer her style or presentation.  
But from a professional level of impromptu speaking she just simply had too many ‘um’, ‘uh’ and waffle type situations for me.  
I get folks do not like that Trump will just be blunt and answer and say what is on his mind. But that is not what I am talking about.  

I am talking about being able to handle random questions you have not prepared for.  
And on multiple topics.

That is why her handlers did not let her go on the podcasts and things of that sort and had regimented questions and friendly environments.  

I think they realized too late that was a very bad weakness of hers.  
But I still think they could have worked a lot more with her and had her better prepared.  

There are maybe 10-12 topics she needed  a rudimentary grasp of.  Then maybe 4-5 she needed a deeper understanding of.  
I really think I could have prepped her in 2-4 weeks just fine.  

They simply either did not put the effort in with her or she refused it or did not take it serious.  

Politics and law are very different topics to know and speak on.   

You sort of saw this with Ocasio-Cortez.  Everyone KNOWS the situation with Taiwan.  But how do you actually answer a direct question about it when it is unexpected.  
This is where Harris struggled.  Trump would always say something and not stumble around.  He has gotten better at NOT saying something when he shouldn’t be talking about it. 
Now folks may not like what he says or that he just says what is on his mind.  But there are no ‘ums’ and ‘uhs’

But AOC is much, much better than Harris.  So, I was surprised at her doing this. 

I guess the best way to look at it is to take politics and like or dislike of the person out of it. 
Then if they are asked a random set of questions about any subject that you do not know anything about yourself.  Which delivery would you feel you would get a coherent answer from without a bunch of ‘ums’ and ‘uhs’ and pauses and stumbles from.  

There are times to be diplomatic and effectively ‘dodge’ questions without looking like you do not have a clue about the topic.  
I always got the sense Harris was trying to look and sound political in her answers.  It was not effective.  

Never forget she never ran on what she had accomplished; she has always run on who she was.  It finally came to light.  

But a politician that has served a few terms should be able to handle a question on Taiwan easy enough.  

@wallstreetcappers

Simply look outside of politics and you see many ineffective speakers.  Some actors like De Niro, Hoffman are bad speakers because they are so used to having a script.  The same with some public figures that are just used to being blunt and unrefined.  For example, Ted Turner was this way.  He was not as polished as other top executives are.

You can even see this in quarterbacks.  Because they are the ones besides the coaches that have to address the media they usually get some speaking coaching.  Compare Brady, Aikman, Brees to any other quarterbacks that you realize are not so good at speaking.

When someone seems hesitant, unsure, pauses, and stumbles through answering simply questions they can seem unintelligent.  Even when you realize that is not the case and they get the answer out finally, it gives you pause.  But you know they are not dumb because they do get out a coherent answer.

But when you stumble and pause and still do not get out a coherent answer, then folks realize you do not have clue what you are trying to say and, likely, no knowledge on the subject.

You do not have to compare Harris to Trump to see this weakness in her.  Because of a dislike of Trump or any Republican that is not a good way to view it.

Simply compare her to Obama, either Clinton, or any other Democrat that ran against her the previous time.

There is a reason she was the first one off the stage in the primary.  I think a lot of it had to do with her inability to field questions and sound coherent while answering them.

An almost textbook way to handle this is the way LeBron James handled it yesterday.  

Whether you like him or not; whether you like politics being involved in sports or not, it was well done by him.  The way he handled the question from someone that was obviously trying to get a sound bite was quite nice.  

I doubt he was expecting a question about Israel.  When he did get it, he had to suspect the guy wanted a political answer.   
James did a good job of handling that question off-the-cuff and very diplomatically.  

Certainly, he has been speaking to the media for decades now and is used to random questions.  Sometimes he has even taken political-type stances.  

But this is something that any politician should be able to handle — especially one that is aiming to run for the highest office in the land. 

@Raiders22

 You excuse and deflect for Trump and anyone outside the circle you try to tear down regularly that is obvious. You give the Lebron example I have no idea why or that DeNiro is a methodical and introverted public speaker and you make that sound reasonable and do not harass or degrade those but you do and have with Harris constantly. My view on Harris is not that I prefer her style that is quite narrow minded of you and then you try to suggest what I dislike about Trump as if it is some style or approach that your view of what I dislike about him is actually a positive that others LIKE about him. That is presumptuous of you and inaccurate which is also regular for you as you insert your view as someone elses and make it a superiority jab. 

You ridicule Harris for cackling or delaying or whatever other descriptor in a negative fashion and insult her to forward your partisan take where I am not suggesting she is perfect or that she does not have flaws because that is not the measure of a good politician or public speaker. Harris is able to interact with positivity and with sincere enthusiasm where it comes off as realistic and genuine, not say like Bondi who comes off as fake and plastic and contrived. It is also what I like about Obama that he comes off as genuine, engaging, intelligent and witty. The measure of a good public speaker is not to amplify their weaknesses it is the extent to how they interact and the way that a public speaker connects with the audience in a genuine way. I think the life path Harris has taken feels genuine and her understanding of others is genuine. I do not feel that way at all about Trump. 

This is all an aside from the drunk uncle constant obtuse and oblivious errors he makes and his racist male dominated self image he has, that I think is his character and is aside from the qualities of a public speaker. I consider Trump the worst POTUS public speaker in my lifetime with Bush Lite being second due to his personality and the introversion he has. If you really wanted to know why I prefer Harris vs Trump you could always ask in a reasonable and respectful way for me to elaborate but I know you do not think that way, you like to generalize others and lay your view onto others as theirs it shows most any time you reply. You lack the ability to discuss much of anything, you are similar to Trump that you like to tell others what they think and how they should act that YOUR view is theirs and that this view is superior and you have a massive audience of intelligent sources to support your superior view. That is not how you have a debate or discussion that is just you making a pulpit for your condescending attitude.

@wallstreetcappers

 No. I am not excusing and deflecting for Trump.  
It just has nothing to do with Trump.  

It is a thread about AOC.  This topic is about her inability to give a good and concise answer to a question about Taiwan.  

You just try to make every subject about Trump because you just don’t like him. 

If Trump is asked about Taiwan and gave a stuttering and stammering reply — then you might have something. 

@wallstreetcappers

 You lack the ability to discuss much of anything

I can and will discuss nearly anything I take an interest in or know about or want to learn about.  I can always use data and facts and writings on subjects to back up what I discuss.  Unlike you, that refuse to go by anything but your limited personal experience.  

Whereas, you on the other hand never, ever do.  
Simply go back and look at the last several questions I have asked you on a few topics.  
No answers from you but deflection and try to make it a ad hominem attack or switch it to Trump no matter the topic. 

So, maybe you just cannot discuss anything other than your hatred of Trump or anyone that does not agree with your far Left ideology. 

Never forget that you then claim to never answer because you think it is a trap. 
Then claim someone else won’t discuss something. 

@Raiders22

 Oh everyone knows you slam AOC and Harris, those are your words and then you excuse and deflect when Trump is obtuse in public speaking because you are partisan. That is the point. If you want to attack and degrade AOC or Harris it comes off as fake and partisan when you try and make Trumps public speaking disaster as folksy and positive. Noting better than Trump not knowing what he is talking about or doing drunk driver speak wandering here and there and everywhere constantly.

Generalized partisan takes are lame and your partisan takes on the DEMS are lame because it is not about the issue at all and your take on AOC and Harris is biased and discriminatory. There are few public speakers who do not have quirks or flaws and in my view the quirks and flaws are not the measure of effectiveness of a public speaker, perfection of delivery is not the real measure or only measure but given that you shade blaringly obvious public speaking disasters and spin those which side with your partisan views shows you are just discriminating and that is flat out lame.

@wallstreetcappers

 If you seriously think Harris can have her speech not show up on a teleprompter and still go for an hour freestyling — I do not know what to tell you.  

If you seriously think she could go on a podcast like Rogan that is unscripted and just flow with it — then the question has to be why was she not allowed to do it?

Then if you think your top candidate for the Presidency should not be able to handle a question on Taiwan without fumbling around — then I am not sure what else there is to say on that topic. Especially, since you have not addressed that one directly either. 

This has been discussed before many times...you dictating a narrative does not mean we are having a conversation. The example you gave here is where you did not like my initial questions so you start taking over then ignore the initial interaction and turn everything into your questions and your spin and your failed attempt to control the narrative.

I can debate you all day long and not lean on silly pocket experts or dictation of how someone can interact with you. I will not tell you to go and find the answers to the questions on your own when asked to defend your position. You have done this multiple times, I ask for specifics which you cannot provide and tell me that others agree with your for me to go and find the answers...this is not discussion.

When you fail to engage and answer I will not be dictated to, you are not the instructor or director of a discussion you do not ignore and then try and demand responses that YOU forward. 

@wallstreetcappers

 Oh everyone knows you slam AOC and Harris,

This is very incorrect.  
You simply have not been paying attention. 
I slam Harris for good reason. 

I like AOC a lot.  I do not like any of her policies or stances.  But as a politician I think she is the best you have right now.  
I have said that repeatedly.  That is why I was so surprised about her stumble here. 
I have given her a lot of credit and do not recall ever slamming her, personally.

If this is your measure then it should be a measure overall not that Harris did something then ignore when Trump and Bondi and others do the same thing and worse, that comes off as fake, partisan and obtuse.

The measure of a public speaker is not if they go on Rogan's podcast, maybe she is not interested in being interrogated by Rogan, but the way you position your definition is quite curious and narrow minded.

@wallstreetcappers

 This has been discussed before many times...you dictating a narrative does not mean we are having a conversation.

Pay very close attention, because I am going to say this again … and in slow motion this time. 

To have a discussion, you have to have a back and forth flow.  This involves questions about your statements and stances.  This involves you answering them and not just you questioning all of the time and refusing to interact by answering some to you.  
It also involves you not constantly using ad hominem attacks on folks.  You need to be more civil in order to have a discussion.  
Otherwise, it just devolves into the usual nonsense that you do, by trying to turn everything into a partisan rant.  

@wallstreetcappers

It is a measure of your knowledge on the subject that you are able to adjust and adapt.  
Wheb you are forced to use a script it shows lack of confidence and knowledge.  
Like I said about the actors and the executives and QBs. 
The same for politicians. 

You need that knowledge, confidence, and diplomacy as a politician.  Harris simply had none of the three.

@Raiders22

  Oh no question in my mind that Harris is by far and not even in the same universe better than Trump at public speaking. She has more experience interacting with the public on the fly than Trump does but aside from that Harris is much younger and less obtuse than Trump.

@THEMUGG

  I remember critiquing her very early on and breaking down her weaknesses and strengths especially in the law degree area.  Then some in her jobs after and not really practicing law.  

I was not too critical of her not passing on her first attempt because California has one of the hardest exams to pass.  
At the time I thought I was a bit too critical about why she would not make a good candidate. 
Looking back I seriously think I was being too easy on her.  
I really give more credit to some that are successor in tougher fields because I realize the extra work it probably takes. 
But she somehow never seemed to be at the level of some of the better female lawyers I have known.  
I also very much like good women to get into politics.  That is harder as well for them.  

That is why I thought Clinton was good and AOC would be good.  Even though I disagree with all of their views. 
I know we have talked about AOC, for example, and disagree. 
But I think the country wants to elect a female.  I just think they have not had a sincere one on the Left.  
But to me AOC could be one.  She is very charismatic and when she wants to know a subject she learns it.  
People make fun of her for going from a barista to where she is — I do not.  
I think she is a real force.  
Maybe the Taiwan thing sets her back. 
BUT she is the type to LEARN from that and move forward.  
Harris is not the type to do that. 
Like the guy said:  she has always run on who she is and not what she has accomplished. 

I am not sure the Right has a charismatic woman that could be an instant front runner on the national stage like AOC.  There are some that I wish would step up because I think they would be.  
But time will tell.  Harris is a twice-failed candidate at this point.  So it is time and the Democrats should start right now working on AOC.  
But, hopefully, they will not.  

@Raiders22

  Getting out there & making a fool of yourself doesn't make you "charismatic" or a candidate for anything.......just a fool, confirmed. A0C is faking it.....she knows nothing. She works on emotions, not facts or experience. Her words ring hollow. Harris is similar, but able to sidestep questions a little better, albeit still poorly.

 Here's a list of what would've likely happened had harris won in 24:

 Millions more illegals in the country now.

 Health & welfare fraud would be carrying on, biz as usual.

 Criminals released.

 More dei propaganda

 Higher taxes

 Police/LE defunded

 Military recruiting would continue to plunge.

 ....& that's not even touching on the world issues. She wouldn't even know where to start on those.

@THEMUGG

I think in a spontaneous setting, AOC handles herself better and looks more professional doing it.

Certainly some of the circular phrasing that Harris uses can be put down to having a prosecutor background and having to be circumspect with her answers and phrasing.

Maybe some of it later was due to the fact that she was speaking for an administration and had to couch her answers around that.

So, in her defense, maybe she just could not effectively make the transition from that background to being her own person/candidate.

The issue I have is she had the chance to due it twice on a large scale and with a broad audience.  She had the first primary she ran in and then the last one she was gifted, in order to separate herself.  You do that, HUGELY, by speaking and articulating your stances and knowledge effectively enough to convince folks.

She did not.

I would say to go watch some of AOC’s talks or speeches — but I do not want to encourage anyone to really do that.

But…if you happen to come across some of hers it is much more dynamic and energetic and clearer what she is trying to say — whether you agree or not, she gets her point across.

She uses what we call ‘clear narrative arcs’ and concrete examples.  You have no doubt what her point is and where she stands when she is done.

You can make the argument that she has more liberty to do this than Harris because of the different positions at the time.

But she has been this way since she first came on the scene.

This is the sort of things that energizes her base and is partly why I say she is more charismatic than Harris.

When you seem guarded in your speech it can come across as unsure.

When you are more conversational, or even seen as direct you come across as confident.  This can make folks see you as relatable and authentic.

These are some of the very things folks see as ‘real’ and not ‘political’.

In other words, if you wanted one or the other to go to a random audience to get them over to your cause — I do not see how you do not choose AOC.

I honestly believe the only reason Harris is polling where she does right now is because AOC has not announced.  The only reason Harris would poll this high is because she was just the ‘nominee’.

I think with the right handlers AOC could beat Newsom.

But I think from what I have seen AOC has sense enough to hone up on the things she does not know that she would need to know at the national level.

I could be very wrong as I think I was about Harris now.  Maybe I am giving her too much credit.

@THEMUGG

 Maybe you are correct about AOC.  But you are right about what we would have gotten with Harris.  

Simply because she had ample chances to distance herself from Biden and his policies and be her own person and did not do it. 

So, yes, it would have been more of the same. 

The problem with your assumptions here is that every single time you enter a comment that I make and try to force me to follow your path how you decide the "conversation" should go. I rarely first engage with you for the very reasons I mentioned above...you do not have discussion or debate you try to control the narrative and to me that is not conversation. Even this reply is so condescending and narrow minded but it proves the point. If I make a comment in a thread NOT a reply or an engagement with YOU and then you come and try to engage ME by making a comment back at me or trying to take the usual poke at me that you do and I ask YOU to explain yourself, that is ME first asking you to explain yourself or define what you are suggesting. IF at that point you either ignore my request and THEN start dictating to me to answer YOUR questions, THIS is not conversation...it is you belly to the bar taking over as you do. Your definition of conversation above is almost the opposite of what you actually do. In the last quagmire we had you refused to specify your view and told me to go find the answers out there and then you were done with the topic. THAT is not conversation that is control and I have no reason to engage with someone who is attempting to partisan control the narrative.

@wallstreetcappers

 I am not forcing you to go any way other than the way any normal conversations go.  

You say something and someone says ‘why’ or ‘where’ etc. 

Then you clarify your position or what you base it on. 

This is the way it is normally done every day in life. 

When you refuse to ever do it then it looks like repeating narratives and talking points from someone else. 

No problem. If you cannot answer or do not want to. 
Carry on — not forcing you to answer. 

@Raiders22

 Cute....the passive aggressive ploy again. If you refuse to answer a question then get perturbed when your question does not get an answer, that is not conversation. So carry on blah blah blah means nothing. You refuse to explain or define your retorts then direct me to find my own answer to YOUR retort and then start changing the narrative and cry when I do not answer your questions while you who entered the topic uninvited did NOT engage to explain their retort.

I think you misunderstand what communication is, you consider communication as you are lecturing and call the shots, ask the questions and then decide if those answers are sufficient or that the answer has a field of scholars to back pat the reply. Conversation here is differing opinions, respectful interaction and the intent of having a spirited discussion and maybe neither side agrees but the interaction is positive and those involved are respectful and considerate. That is what we should aspire to but in reality most here including you are not engaging, not respectful, not seeking dialogue and constructive conversation its all partisan narrative and insults. Or we have the even worse nonsense as a few above who just take digs and throw roller emoticons and toss in LIB and DEMS, that is the gutter stuff but actual real engaging discussion even at the point of disagreement seems impossible for all but I would say 2-3 members.