Totally missing the point…

It is her “AoR”.  And to think that she doesn’t have influence regardless of her “official capacity” is either naive or you’re purposely being obtuse.

Focus, I mentioned getting funding.

I am no fan of AOC but this really isn't her area of responsibility. She represents her constituents nationally and makes national laws but this problem of prostitution in red light areas is really something that falls under the purview of local and state laws and agencies. AOC doesn't direct New York police or prosecutors and she doesn't affect New York law. She could ask for federal money to help address the problems but she doesn't have authority there.

Totally missing the point…

It is her “AoR”.  And to think that she doesn’t have influence regardless of her “official capacity” is either naive or you’re purposely being obtuse.

You are overstating the authority. Crazy Mazie can come home and complain and yell but she can't change state law and she can't tell the prosecutors or the police what to do. Her "influence" is rather limited, she isn't going to solve crime problems.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see her throw her hat in the ring. She is popular, she is attractive, she has energy, she has experience, she checks all the boxes, etc. She is definitely going to have competition though. I would bet Newsom will be on the ballot as well.

i knew you were going to try and say you already said that, but that's not what you said.

You said she could use federal funding to address the problems -- i.e. use federal money to pay for solutions for the problems.

That's a far cry from using federal funding as a control mechanism -- a carrot --  for state-level programs and agencies to voluntarily comply with AOC's agenda.

I didn't say anything about authority, which is the point you're missing.  As in it's your opinion that her "influence is rather limited", which is your prerogative, but it seems naive, purposely obtuse, or inconsistent. . .

You think she's popular b/c of her policies and/or effectiveness for the people she "represents nationally"?

And your opinion that her influence could make a significant difference seems naive.


You think she's popular b/c of her policies and/or effectiveness for the people she "represents nationally"?

I didn't say that, I didn't say why she was popular not did I say she was effective.

But maybe I am wrong, how do you think AOC could significantly change enforcement of prostitution law at a local level using just "influence"

Uh, first that was a question. Not a statement.

Tell me where I said her influence could or would make a difference.

So you’re saying politicians can’t or don’t try to use their position to influence things outside their “official capacity/authority”?

A distinction without a difference but ok.

My mistake, I missed the question mark.

My point was that it isn't fair to blame AOC for prostitution problems in a city she represents. When assigning blame we need to look at police, prosecutors, the state legislator, etc. I think people are just angling this story politically as a way to attack her. I have no problem with criticizing her but I think as a matter of principle criticism must be just and accurate.

And your opinion that her influence could make a significant difference seems naive.


I didn't say that, I didn't say why she was popular not did I say she was effective.

But maybe I am wrong, how do you think AOC could significantly change enforcement of prostitution law at a local level using just "influence"

How interesting that people are complaining that AOC is nowhere to be found in their community and that they don't know how to get in touch with her office.

And that she does nothing for the community she represents.

But she got re-elected.

Congress has a staff that does things like look into problems their district's/state's constituents ask them about.

Case in point:  when my AFROTC scholarship was on hold pending the results of a medical review and we'd heard nothing for 3 months, it was getting uncomfortably close to the end of the semester.  My mother wrote our representatives in Congress, and one of them sent out queries to the Air Force to find out what the delay was.  About a week later, my college ROTC unit had a fire lit under them!  They took the next day to drive me to Seymore-Johnson AFB to have a new set of X-Rays taken to replace the ones I'd sent in.  My set was misplaced, returned to my doctor, or something -- the offices in CO were in the middle of a move, so they were a little disorganized.  I wound up getting my waiver and activating my 4 year scholarship 2 days before the semester ended, which would have canceled the scholarship totally.

So, yes, Congress members have a wide scope of influence when it comes to problems their constituents bring to their attention.  They can request reports, hold hearings, interview LE agency heads, and whatever else they want in order to help them define the problem.  As for prostitution, there are federal monies being paid to law enforcement in states.  it would be appropriate for her to offer to increase that funding to hire more officers, increase vice department funding, or whatever else.

These representatives spnd most of their time addressing problems back home whether or not they are directly responsible or authorized to implement the solutions.

It's called leadership.  Federal officials actually have more "pull" in their states than many state officials.

Thats a good example but that's within the Federal government.

How would you suggest AOC do that would make a significant impact beyond changing federal law or doing things with funding?

that's what "pork barrel" funding is, amongst other things.

securing federal grants that are specifically targeted for very localized projects or issues, in exchange for votes (for or against) on other issues.  It's the classic tit-for-tat, you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.

Local law enforcement might get extra federal funding to DUI efforts, or federal grant targeted specifically to combat drug dealing, or other vices, or homeless, or rail, mayors pet project, the full spectrum, and Mazie Hirono votes for-or-against some federal bill, in exchange for passing the bill that has these pork-barrel amendments attached that benefit something local, distributed to county or counties, depending on how written.

funding is very effective.  Money talks, bullshit walks..  you can't exclude "doing things with funding", it's probably the most effective politician tool, the grift, for making it rain money in a specific local community, or making that money go away.

it happens all the time, probably been going on for decades.  nothing new.

Similarly, AOC could threaten to reduce funding to NYPD for tactical gear, or overtime, or some federal grant or funding, if they continue to crack down prostitution on Roosevelt Avenue, which has been shown lately to be mostly illegals, with locals complaining how it's destroying the neighborhood.  But AOC puts priority on illegals over her constituents.

Thats a good example but that's within the Federal government.

How would you suggest AOC do that would make a significant impact beyond changing federal law or doing things with funding?

You're missing the point.  You're also making a lot of assumptions.

Congress doesn't control the Air Force, the Pentagon, nor any other executive agency.  While they have the duty to fund them, they are not sticking their nose into the military's internal workings like ROTC recruiting and scholarships.

You might as well have asked why my mother didn't write a letter to the President as he is the Commander in Chief of the military.  In our government, we have Representatives.  Those are the people from whom you you seek assistance when you find it necessary.

The influence a Representative can bring to bear on a problem sent to them by a constituent is the point.  What someone can do to solve a specific problem is not a defined process.  For the issues in her own district, maybe getting the DOJ involved can help.  Maybe the problem is a police department that's so corrupt, they don't want to fix the problems because they are profiting from them.  Maybe they are doing all they can but need more resources?  Maybe they have an organized crime problem which the feds can absolutely address if it spans more than one state. 

She can start by at least gathering the answers to some of these questions and others and THEN AFTER SHE'S SPENT TIME ON THE ISSUES can come up with what she can do.

I'm not suggesting she do anything other than take time to address the problems in her district.  If she's got the same "not my place to fix it" mentality as you do, then it explains why the people raising the issues are saying she's MIA and nobody there can contact her.

Why do you assume the only way AOC can make an impact is within the scope of lawmaking and budgeting?  I sat next to a US Representative for Hawaii on a trip to the Big Island once.  When asked what issues she normally spent the most time on, it wasn't federal issues.  It was local issues.  The federal issues are pretty much orchestrated by the DNC.  They send out monthly newsletters that show schedules of speeches and photo ops so they can attend  to show participation, what issues are being voted on in chambers, and the talking points for why they are voting for or against the measures.  When she was on break from Congress, she went home and held meetings and office hours to discuss local problems and solutions.

If you still don't get it, ask a more reasonable question than trying to put the solution back on me.  I haven't studied the problems in her district, so I can only give general problem solving ideas. 

If you are just trying to say what you believe, which is AOC can do nothing for her constituents, including picking up the phone when her voters call, you don't need to reiterate that opinion.  You seem to know what you know, and posting back and forth is just another one of your thought experiments.

I am clearly not saying that there is nothing AOC can do, I am pointing out that the problem is primarily the one of local agencies. I don't look to Crazy Mazie to deal with homeless people so I am not going to blame her for China Town just because she is a democrat. Sometimes the locals do need to get off their butt however but often the problem extends well beyond funding or laziness. For example case precedent can hamper the enforcement of certain crimes and calls aren't going to change that.

I am clearly not saying that there is nothing AOC can do, I am pointing out that the problem is primarily the one of local agencies. I don't look to Crazy Mazie to deal with homeless people so I am not going to blame her for China Town just because she is a democrat. Sometimes the locals do need to get off their butt however but often the problem extends well beyond funding or laziness. For example case precedent can hamper the enforcement of certain crimes and calls aren't going to change that.

You implied more than once the problems in her district are the responsibility of the local government and that AOC is not able to do anything at her federal level to solve them.

Now you say you didn't say there is nothing she can do after grilling us on "what do you suggest she do?"  And you're now qualifying "it's a local problem" with "primarily."

Then you reversed again saying Mazie can't do anything about China Town homelessness.

People in higher level positions of government absolutely have influence over the problems in their districts.  They have meetings with governors and mayors all the time to discuss problems and strategies including what THEY can do to help.

Stop moving the goal posts.  You're talking in circles.  They can help, or they can't help.  One or the other.