Shameful college video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has come to light

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

please be more specific, what exactly do you not understand?

How farmers will be worse off under the New Green Deal, why it should be the responsibility of the Green New Deal to make farmers better off, and how expanding welfare is made hypocritical by paying her employees a living wage.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Naive, and as usual I provide good references showing exactly what I am talking about, yet liberals accept any poppycock just so narrative that happens by as long as it sounds good.

I'll grant that you provided a reference. Good? Compared to the vast majority of research, as well as the simple fact that the Great Migration predates the New Deal? Um...no. And as anyone who has read the writings of people who participated will tell you, it was mostly industrial jobs, and the stifling oppression of the Jim Crow South, that motivated most to move, not any government program. Land wasn't simply abandoned by black people - they were robbed and murdered for it.

Quote:

BTW It's not just blacks, they were just the first. And the Green New Deal just happens to model itself after the New Deal. Only it will make it much worse by treating pretty much everybody like that, not just a few poor black and redneck farmers.

Again, I see no reason to believe this. How much the "Green New Deal" will help or hurt will depend on the specific bills and how they are implemented, but since we have no bills as of yet, there's nothing beyond a vague proposal that resources be poured into this or that technology.

Quote:

As for industry, that appears to be a one off, but in general yes, Industry has bribed the bureaucrats into carrying out their plans to remove the competition. Or in some cases, simply nominated their representative to be the bureaucrat in the first place, so they don't even need bribed.

Nope. There's simply little need to do so in the case of USDA loans, unlike home loans.

Quote:

Yet instead of fixing this, AOC proposes to make it even worse.

Again, you cannot have evidence of this.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

How farmers will be worse off under the New Green Deal, why it should be the responsibility of the Green New Deal to make farmers better off, and how expanding welfare is made hypocritical by paying her employees a living wage.

It's worth noting that some farmers have converted some or all of their land into solar energy fields.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

How farmers will be worse off under the New Green Deal, why it should be the responsibility of the Green New Deal to make farmers better off, and how expanding welfare is made hypocritical by paying her employees a living wage.

Because welfare of all types, is designed to keep people down rather than support fair wages for work done. The Old New Deal proved the concept with the paying farmers NOT to grow things. Just pure and simple paying people not to work. Of course sharecroppers did not qualify, only the big land owners. That gradually changed by the 1970's but still there is subsidized crop insurance that does the exact same thing.

Commodity crops are over grown and supply floods the market. The crop insurance has a floor price it pays though. It can pay for crop failure or for market crash either one. So it works as a complex buffer stock scheme for the commodities markets and as a welfare state for the farmers. Farmers can't escape this though because even if they try to run their farms without these subsidies, and manage to produce a bumper crop, because the subsidies insure over production, the price will crash and they can't get a high enough price per bushel. Without subsidized insurance they could lose the farm. If your farm is big enough you could make a small profit, but for most farmers the only way to survive is work an extra job(s) off farm. Certainly seldom enough to support 2 or 3 generations on one farm at the same time. Less than 1/2 even net positive income at all. Ironically the only people who actually are profiting are the insurance companies, not farmers! Their risk for writing policies is reduced to near zero and it's a no risk pure profit scenario for them!

So we then come to the New Green Deal proposed by AOC. And while she does accept that farmers to have a significant role to play, her ideas are all backwards. For example she realizes that the markets are failing to pressure an end to AGW. Which is true. They are flawed. But rather than propose a way to fix them she instead wants to move away from markets completely and instead proposes strict regulatory burden and punitive taxes!

If you would just get rid of all the remnants of the New Deal Farm programs, and instead replace it with a carbon market where you would (OMG NEW CONCEPT) pay farmers to sequester carbon in their soil, then we would still of course need to lower emissions some, but under no circumstances would we need to give up planes or eliminate our standard of living. In fact we could most likely improve standard of living at less tax burden than we have now.

Lots of people get real technical about AGW and completely miss the main issue. It's a fundamental systemic error in logic found in our economic systems that place value in goods and services higher than ecological function.

But should we use carbon as a proxy for living ecosystem function, this would close the loop and turn quite a few so called "hidden costs" into real assets. That would turn a fundamentally flawed economic system into something that would lead in the long run to something capable of being balanced and avoid the tragedy of the commons into Malthusian collapse.

I don't expect it to happen right away, but it would force very powerful economic pressures to mold economies toward sustainability just on their own without odious regulatory burden or punitive taxes.

This section is a copy paste of what was removed before. I had assumed that the people here had no need for a rehashing of context for continuity. I was wrong. I apologize, but hopefully this time people can make sense of why I posted that before when I tried to answer you the first time but had my post moved.

TLDR answer is that by moving even farther away from fixing the market problems and instead promoting an almost banana republic style overbearing government solution, she is heading into a pathway that will only serve to harm this great republic, not help it.

There is more we can discuss like her jumping on the anti meat Vegan bandwagon that makes any agricultural help impossible. But that should get you started.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Because welfare of all types, is designed to keep people down rather than support fair wages for work done.

I stopped there.

Evidence required for this assertion.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

That's Hebrew old testament. A document that in many ways documents how difficult it was to civilize a notoriously stubborn and barbarous people. The take being it had to be a miracle from God, because they were the worst example of all possibilities. I used to know a stat about how many times the words "stiff necked" were used.

Deutoronomy is Old Testament. And no, the Old Testament doesn't show anything about how to civilize people as it is grotesquely uncivilized and barbaric. What It demonstrates is how fear and superstitious nonsense is used for power and a cudgel to get others to submit. And this didn't stop with the Old Testament. Consider that Jesus never said all those Old Testament laws were wrong. In fact, he endorses them saying not a jot or a tittle of the law is to be changed. He says slaves obey your masters and who is unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Anyway I quoted it to show a principle pervasive in American law and culture as even for atheists, the culture we have is indeed a Judaeo-Christian culture.

It doesn't show it very well. And Judeo Christian ethics make up very little of American law. There are 613 Mosaic laws and maybe 4 of them are incorporated into American laws and those can be found in almost every culture on the planet.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Some people think the idea of "God's chosen people" means they were better than everyone else. Quite contrary actually. It was by civilizing some of the worst people on the face of the Earth that God manifests himself as divine.

This is merely a claim without proof. As I have never seen a shred of credible evidence for divinity by anyone.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Later Jesus says directly he came for the sinner, not the righteous.

Although you may have difficulty explaining this to anyone. They tend to get offended. And now we really are off topic.

I'm not offended, I'm just flabbergasted that intelligent people shut off their brains and appeal to superstitions.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Back to AOC. She still hasn't figured out a coherent platform. I suspect it may take more than a few years to do so. Right now she is a weird mixture of conservative Latino roots and socialist dogma. It's ok to borrow from both, but she hasn't managed to do that in any coherent way IMHO.

Give her time. I don't mind because she's getting people to talk about fairness, equity and the environment. A conversation that is essential for growth.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Because welfare of all types, is designed to keep people down rather than support fair wages for work done.

Riiiiight...

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Because welfare of all types, is designed to keep people down rather than support fair wages for work done.

Ah, at least now I see why your argument is incoherent.

[Mumbles]

Here's a remarkable thing about "AOC"...

She seems to walk into every high-profile questioning or briefing well-prepared to ask the best possible questions, given her time. No grandstanding, none of the Kavanaugh/Graham yowling as the evidence closes in, just straight, Q&A getting to the heart of the matter.

And she's revealed much, simply by doing this. As much as her critics say she has no substance, that looks to be projection (as always).

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I stopped there.

Evidence required for this assertion.

aha you found out my secret. I am a cynic regarding politicians and entitlements. To me they are the moral equivalent of your corner drug dealer who passes out a free sample, just hoping you'll get addicted and become his slave for life.

As for evidence it doesn't take much time at all to see how ineffective the programs are at pulling people out of poverty. The thing that always trips people up being was it designed this way? Or is it an unfortunate unintended consequence of a wicked problem that defies solution?

I believe at least in regard to the New Deal Farm programs the consensus is that they were purposely designed that way. Seeing as how the USDA has stated as much! It seems to me you have the burden to prove they lied and instead of on purpose, it was unintended.

It's been over 30 years since we had politicians willing to admit the same regarding other welfare programs. Because self admitting racists have real difficulties getting elected anymore. Instead we have racists who pretend to be anti-racist.

Since they'll never admit it anymore, I have nothing but circumstantial evidence it is actually planned anymore. But I can assure you that a close look at the programs themselves shows it indirectly. Just the strings attached to the so called "help" prove this probably isn't accidental.

For example, how much different a WPA or CCC new deal work program compared to other welfare programs, particularly housing projects.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Here's a remarkable thing about "AOC"...

She seems to walk into every high-profile questioning or briefing well-prepared to ask the best possible questions, given her time. No grandstanding, none of the Kavanaugh/Graham yowling as the evidence closes in, just straight, Q&A getting to the heart of the matter.

And she's revealed much, simply by doing this. As much as her critics say she has no substance, that looks to be projection (as always).

Their idea that she would turn out to be an ignorant, incompetent loud mouth was entirely built around their own prejudices against liberals, young people, Hispanics, and women in general. That it turned out to be the exact opposite is a narrative they are trying really, really hard to not admit.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Here's a remarkable thing about "AOC"...

She seems to walk into every high-profile questioning or briefing well-prepared to ask the best possible questions, given her time. No grandstanding, none of the Kavanaugh/Graham yowling as the evidence closes in, just straight, Q&A getting to the heart of the matter.

And she's revealed much, simply by doing this. As much as her critics say she has no substance, that looks to be projection (as always).

My personal observation is that the right wing cranks have changed her caricature from "air-headed idiot" to "mouthpiece of sophisticated puppet masters", so there's a tacit recognition of her competence.

She has certainly proven to be a very shrewd operator. The House is the perfect place for someone who knows how to ask good questions and grab media spotlights.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The thing about this whole "living wage" debacle is that Ocasio-Cortez's approach actually makes more sense than the other way of doing it. Fox News tried to paint it as her taking money out of the pockets of higher-up members of staff, because there's a finite pool that you have to pay everybody from. But, if I were her, that's exactly how I'd want the wage structure to be.

The people at the bottom are hungry for the work, as they see it as a way of moving up. That's how come most people can get away with paying them less than a living wage. But if you pay them more, then they won't lose any of that hunger, but they'll be more willing to put in the hard work for your sake as well as their own. They'll know they've got a good deal, and that will help engender feelings of loyalty to you.

OTOH, once you move up the tree you want to pay people less than the average. That'll weed out the people who are in it just for the money, and will instead help you find people who want to work for you, specifically, because they believe in you and what you stand for. It also leaves open the possibility that you'll find people who are incompetent enough not to be offered jobs for anybody else, but given how competitive this particular job market is I wouldn't have thought there would be much problem finding competent people who aren't in it just for the money.

So I think that the wage structure she set and the fact that she seems to have a good staff are likely not unrelated.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The thing about this whole "living wage" debacle is that Ocasio-Cortez's approach actually makes more sense than the other way of doing it. Fox News tried to paint it as her taking money out of the pockets of higher-up members of staff, because there's a finite pool that you have to pay everybody from. But, if I were her, that's exactly how I'd want the wage structure to be.

The people at the bottom are hungry for the work, as they see it as a way of moving up. That's how come most people can get away with paying them less than a living wage. But if you pay them more, then they won't lose any of that hunger, but they'll be more willing to put in the hard work for your sake as well as their own. They'll know they've got a good deal, and that will help engender feelings of loyalty to you.

OTOH, once you move up the tree you want to pay people less than the average. That'll weed out the people who are in it just for the money, and will instead help you find people who want to work for you, specifically, because they believe in you and what you stand for. It also leaves open the possibility that you'll find people who are incompetent enough not to be offered jobs for anybody else, but given how competitive this particular job market is I wouldn't have thought there would be much problem finding competent people who aren't in it just for the money.

So I think that the wage structure she set and the fact that she seems to have a good staff are likely not unrelated.

I also don't really see the issue with paying the lower level employees are livable wage. I don't even know how it is possible for staffers to survive off 30k/year in a place like DC, not to mention unpaid interns. Simply put, these low wages are a barrier for entry to people who don't have the financial resources to subsidize an inadequate wage. I'm guessing many of these staffers are relying on money from family make this work, in hopes of a better paying job in the future. This is not an option for people from poorer backgrounds and can't cover the short-term shortfall in hopes of long-term returns.

I do worry about paying higher level workers lower wages. I understand it is necessary to make the staff budget work, but I would worry about staff retention. AOC might have some true believers on her staff, but we shouldn't count on regular people being zealots in order to accept low wages.

Many of these staffers are doing their time in order to make connections that make them employable as lobbyists. Working as a low payed staffer is just putting your time in for the high-paying job that awaits. Having low wages for higher level staffers could potentially accelerate their departure from public service by exaggerating the already great disparity in income potential. This might not matter much though, as public salaries are not going to be able to compete with the compensation available from cash-flushed lobby groups.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I also don't really see the issue with paying the lower level employees are livable wage.

It's Communism.

Quote:

Simply put, these low wages are a barrier for entry to people who don't have the financial resources to subsidize an inadequate wage. I'm guessing many of these staffers are relying on money from family make this work, in hopes of a better paying job in the future. This is not an option for people from poorer backgrounds and can't cover the short-term shortfall in hopes of long-term returns.

Yes, this is a reason why it's the right thing to do, but I was specifically talking about why it's a smart move for a politician.

Quote:

AOC might have some true believers on her staff, but we shouldn't count on regular people being zealots in order to accept low wages.

I would say lower, not low.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I would say lower, not low.

Low is relative. But I imagine anything will seem low compared to whatever k-street has to offer someone with personal connections to members of congress.

I definitely see her paying her low level employees better as a political win. Liberals are often (fairly) castigated as hypocrites on these kinds of issues. AOC is leading by example.

[acbytesla]

Quote:

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...2-days-running

This is staggering. There are 235 Democratic Congressional Representatives 62 of which are first timers. And yet, Fox and the Republicans are obsessed with a single Freshman Congressperson. She has replaced Hillary Clinton as their favorite punching bag.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is staggering. There are 235 Democratic Congressional Representatives 62 of which are first timers. And yet, Fox and the Republicans are obsessed with a single Freshman Congressperson. She has replaced Hillary Clinton as their favorite punching bag.

And for the same reason: they are scared ******** of her. They know she has the goods, and they have to take her down.

25 years of attacks on HRC and she still got 3 million more votes than their candidate. That's a concern.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

And for the same reason: they are scared ******** of her. They know she has the goods, and they have to take her down.

25 years of attacks on HRC and she still got 3 million more votes than their candidate. That's a concern.

"Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted ambitious leftist policies such as a Green New Deal , has supplanted Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the favoured target of many conservatives"



They always say "Its the quiet ones" you gotta watch. Every time the catch a serial killer, they get his neighbor on TV and they say "He was always real...quiet". And someone in the room says "Its the quiet ones you gotta watch."

This sounds like a very dangerous assumption.

I'll bet you anything, that while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will ******* kill you.

- George Carlin (from Stupid Expressions)

[Foolmewunz]

All the attention to AOC is because they're attempting to make her the "face of the Democratic Party". That worked so well with the demonizing of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They made her the Loon in Chief in '17 and '18 and then the GOP swept the House elections and Pelosi lost to a little-known bank manager from Sepulveda.

Oh, wait......



Have fun creating your lying narrative, conservatives. As the "face" of the party, she's entertaining and don't take ****. She's also cute as a button and serves as a daily reminder that the right wing pundits just seem to have that little bit of extra pettiness and even viciousness when the target is a woman.

She also distracts the Great Right Wing Noise Machine from having to attack across a broad front and demonize the laundry list of primary candidates. The right wing are simple minded and need something to focus on.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is staggering. There are 235 Democratic Congressional Representatives 62 of which are first timers. And yet, Fox and the Republicans are obsessed with a single Freshman Congressperson. She has replaced Hillary Clinton as their favorite punching bag.

For exactly the same reason.

They knew Clinton was going to run for President while she was still first lady. They knew how much the excitement of the first female president would buoy her campaign so they spent decades throwing everything they could think of at her. And it worked.

Now they see AOC as a future threat. She's got a little bit of that Obama charisma so she needs to get some muck raked onto her to nip that in the bud. They're starting with accusations that she's stupid and a communist. Once she's got more of a record in congress they'll see what else they can spin. They're not above making ridiculous things up out of thin air. Perhaps they'll say she's a satanic pedophile next. Anything so that in 2028 or whenever she might run, Republicans will be fueled by anger to rush out to the polls to stop her, centrists will have a harder time finding the lesser of two evils and democrats will be uninspired and stay home. Or even better, she can't take the years of crushing attacks and never tries for POTUS.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

They're not above making ridiculous things up out of thin air.

At this point, the volume of false stories being put out about her are just about a gold mine for Snopes.

Does Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Have a Low Credit Score, Closed Checking Accounts, and a History of Evictions?

Did Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Claim Walls Could Not Be Built in Mountains?

Is U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an Actress Playing a Congresswoman?

Did U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Demand Free Tuition for the Electoral College?

Did Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Tweet That Hoda Muthana Was a Hero?

Is This a Photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Being Held Up by Her Legs?

Did Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Say it Was ‘Wrong’ for Billionaires to Exist?

Does the Green New Deal Proposal Include a ‘Recycling Urine’ Provision?

Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Propose a Nationwide Motorcycle Ban?

Does U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Oppose Daylight Saving Time Because It Speeds Up Climate Change?

Did Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Forget to Vote for Her Own Bill?

Was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Once Fired from Hot Dog on a Stick?

Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wear a $7,600 Ensemble to the State of the Union Address?

That's not even all of them. That's just from two pages of search results from searching the Snopes site for "AOC" and the first page of results from searching for her full name. There are four more pages of results tied to her full name.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by crescent

At this point, the volume of false stories being put out about her are just about a gold mine for Snopes.

<polite snip>

That's not even all of them. That's just from two pages of search results from searching the Snopes site for "AOC" and the first page of results from searching for her full name. There are four more pages of results tied to her full name.

I'm tellin' ya, the Right are making stuff up like this because they are terrified of her and what she brings to the table.... VOTERS... Democrat voters!

She has a very strong following among the same group of voters who were a key part of flipping the House in the mid-terms... young, first-time voters. There will be even more of them in 2020.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is staggering. There are 235 Democratic Congressional Representatives 62 of which are first timers. And yet, Fox and the Republicans are obsessed with a single Freshman Congressperson. She has replaced Hillary Clinton as their favorite punching bag.

She's prettier than most of them, always a sure way to get on Fox and more importantly, she's a lot farther to the left than just about all of them. I great way to motivate conservative voters is to convince them that the entire Dem party is as far left as its most lefty members. They love to talk about AOC, Bernie*, and Warren on that score.

*I know, not really a dem but close enough.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

For exactly the same reason.

They knew Clinton was going to run for President while she was still first lady. They knew how much the excitement of the first female president would buoy her campaign so they spent decades throwing everything they could think of at her. And it worked.

Now they see AOC as a future threat. She's got a little bit of that Obama charisma so she needs to get some muck raked onto her to nip that in the bud. They're starting with accusations that she's stupid and a communist. Once she's got more of a record in congress they'll see what else they can spin. They're not above making ridiculous things up out of thin air. Perhaps they'll say she's a satanic pedophile next. Anything so that in 2028 or whenever she might run, Republicans will be fueled by anger to rush out to the polls to stop her, centrists will have a harder time finding the lesser of two evils and democrats will be uninspired and stay home. Or even better, she can't take the years of crushing attacks and never tries for POTUS.

There is of course problems with their strategy. While attacking the Congress person, they are raising her profile. They have made AOC as much as she has. And she has demonstrated a knack for swatting away their attacks. Now, she certainly has made some mistakes, but they have worsened their own brand in their petty attacks.it keeps backfiring on them.

I'm afraid though that she might start believing she is invincible and make a stupid mistake. Pelosi is getting pissed at her for working her celebrity too much and not working the halls of Congress enough. Still, she is young and she won't be moving up the ladder for years.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

There is of course problems with their strategy.

...

True, but that's not their only strategy, and in general, they're just much better at playing dirty than the dems. Part of that is that they also hedge. They've got angles planned that try to turn her popularity into a weakness (They failed at that angle with Obama, but I think they've learned from that and evolved the nuance of that particular attack).

They're running at divisions within the Democratic party. Use AOC's popularity to turn the more social democrats against the centrists.

And remember that with the current partisan divide, turnout may be a more important chunk of the game than changing minds. The more well known AOC is, the more angry GOP voters turn out.

I would like to be optimistic, but it's a hell of an uphill battle.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

True, but that's not their only strategy, and in general, they're just much better at playing dirty than the dems. Part of that is that they also hedge. They've got angles planned that try to turn her popularity into a weakness (They failed at that angle with Obama, but I think they've learned from that and evolved the nuance of that particular attack).

They're running at divisions within the Democratic party. Use AOC's popularity to turn the more social democrats against the centrists.

And remember that with the current partisan divide, turnout may be a more important chunk of the game than changing minds. The more well known AOC is, the more angry GOP voters turn out.

I would like to be optimistic, but it's a hell of an uphill battle.

I don't really concern myself with the campaigns this early because the only people interested are political junkies at this point.

I agree with you the Republicans are experts at dirty messaging tactics. Far better than the Democrats. Hut I think the whole leftist socialist tag doesn't have the negative effect it use to. Sure, it's red meat for the base, but swing voters don't seem to be triggered by it any more.

I understand the paranoia. I feel that way a lot. But then, I take a deep breath and remember that the Republicans also have a habit of exaggerating and shooting themselves in the foot.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

There is of course problems with their strategy. While attacking the Congress person, they are raising her profile. They have made AOC as much as she has. And she has demonstrated a knack for swatting away their attacks. Now, she certainly has made some mistakes, but they have worsened their own brand in their petty attacks.it keeps backfiring on them.

They attacked her for being "just a barmaid" and an ordinary worker. That is a very elitist stance, and strikes at the heart of what it is to follow the "American dream", to drag yourself up from humble beginnings and make something of yourself.

It was a very big mistake, and a missed opportunity for the Dems.... they should have tried to make real capital of that.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

They attacked her for being "just a barmaid" and an ordinary worker. That is a very elitist stance, and strikes at the heart of what it is to follow the "American dream", to drag yourself up from humble beginnings and make something of yourself.

It was a very big mistake, and a missed opportunity for the Dems.... they should have tried to make real capital of that.

Indeed, since the Reps have been making claims that the Dems are elitist and out of touch with blue collar/working class people, that should have been an easy play.

Then again, Republican displays massive hypocrisy type stories don't seem to cause anybody to bat an eyelash anymore.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Indeed, since the Reps have been making claims that the Dems are elitist and out of touch with blue collar/working class people, that should have been an easy play.

Then again, Republican displays massive hypocrisy type stories don't seem to cause anybody to bat an eyelash anymore.

OTOH, stories showing Republicans failing to be massively hypocritical seem to get a lot of undeserved attention.

It really ought not to be that unusual. But it is.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I'm tellin' ya, the Right are making stuff up like this because they are terrified of her and what she brings to the table.... VOTERS... Democrat voters!

She has a very strong following among the same group of voters who were a key part of flipping the House in the mid-terms... young, first-time voters. There will be even more of them in 2020.

My "fear" of her would be that her radical ideas will catch on in a society of young, low intelligence self-entitled voters who are starting to embrace socialist ideals.

It has nothing to do with her being a democrat, only that she is so radical. It has nothing to do with her being a woman either or brown, or whatever else you (Travis) claimed that I forgot.

I wouldn't mind a Dem President at all, I couldn't care less about her party, especially now. It's her ideas that I dislike with a passion, nothing more. Nothing.

Many people here at ISF like to paint anyone against her as a racist, misogynist, or just fearing more "dem voters". These people use these blanket criticisms to make their arguments because they require no real thought, and they get applauded by the equally mindless folks who they know will agree with them. The same goes for "You don't like illegal aliens because you're racist"

When you lazily paint with a broad brush you are ignoring much of the argument, and that in turn will bite you in the ass again come election day.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

My "fear" of her would be that her radical ideas will catch on in a society of young, low intelligence self-entitled voters who are starting to embrace socialist ideals.

It has nothing to do with her being a democrat, only that she is so radical. It has nothing to do with her being a woman either or brown, or whatever else you (Travis) claimed that I forgot.

I wouldn't mind a Dem President at all, I couldn't care less about her party, especially now. It's her ideas that I dislike with a passion, nothing more. Nothing.

Many people here at ISF like to paint anyone against her as a racist, misogynist, or just fearing more "dem voters". These people use these blanket criticisms to make their arguments because they require no real thought, and they get applauded by the equally mindless folks who they know will agree with them. The same goes for "You don't like illegal aliens because you're racist"

When you lazily paint with a broad brush you are ignoring much of the argument, and that in turn will bite you in the ass again come election day.

She's not radical. What part of her policy proposals are radical? Certainly not her tax proposal are radical. Neither is Medicare for all.

Please explain what proposals she has made that are radical and why.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

My "fear" of her would be that her radical ideas will catch on in a society of young, low intelligence self-entitled voters who are starting to embrace socialist ideals.

Very unlikely. Its more likely that the Senate will turn on Trump

In any case, I think her followers would smarter than your average Trump base hick.

Originally Posted by mgidm86

It has nothing to do with her being a democrat, only that she is so radical. It has nothing to do with her being a woman either or brown, or whatever else you (Travis) claimed that I forgot.

I wouldn't mind a Dem President at all, I couldn't care less about her party, especially now. It's her ideas that I dislike with a passion, nothing more. Nothing.

Well, I think she is on the right track with her radical ideas, its just that she is running a full head of steam and shovelling more coal into the furnace.

At least she is addressing the single greatest danger facing humanity, the danger that will see the human race extinct in a terrifyingly short period of time if we keep doing what we are doing. No-one, but no-one on the other side of the aisle is addressing this danger at all - they are burying their collective heads in the sand like the archetypal ostriches they are, while they encourage more of what got us into this position in the first place.

Any politicians who serioulys addresses climate change has my vote, even if they are radical. They can always have the brakes applied to keep them on the right track. Better than not being on the track at all.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Very unlikely. Its more likely that the Senate will turn on Trump

In any case, I think her followers would smarter than your average Trump base hick.



Well, I think she is on the right track with her radical ideas, its just that she is running a full head of steam and shovelling more coal into the furnace.

At least she is addressing the single greatest danger facing humanity, the danger that will see the human race extinct in a terrifyingly short period of time if we keep doing what we are doing. No-one, but no-one on the other side of the aisle is addressing this danger at all - they are burying their collective heads in the sand like the archetypal ostriches they are, while they encourage more of what got us into this position in the first place.

Any politicians who serioulys addresses climate change has my vote, even if they are radical. They can always have the brakes applied to keep them on the right track. Better than not being on the track at all.

Let's seek just how radical AOC's ideas are.

Raising the top marginal tax rate above 70%. It's so radical that the United States averaged a higher marginal tax rate for almost 6 decades.

Implement a wealth tax? Radical? I hardly think so. We already have wealth taxes. They're called property taxes which is the source of the average American's wealth.

Free education? After WWII the US offered free education in many states. This was also a period of highest growth.

Universal Healthcare? So radical that most Western nations have some form of it.

I sure hope voters listen to her.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

My "fear" of her would be that her radical ideas will catch on in a society of young, low intelligence self-entitled voters who are starting to embrace socialist ideals.

Funny how many times I've been told how these kinds of misunderstanding elitist attitudes towards voters is why Trump won in 2016.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

She's not radical. What part of her policy proposals are radical? Certainly not her tax proposal are radical. Neither is Medicare for all.

Please explain what proposals she has made that are radical and why.

+1, please.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

She's not radical. What part of her policy proposals are radical?

Green New Deal. She wants to radically transform your way of life and she's very open about it.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Green New Deal. She wants to radically transform your way of life and she's very open about it.

Damn her! Pushing for a better standard of living for the average American.

Or we can keep going down our present path of increasing efficiencies and the benefits going to only a few. Which has become the American way. All for the rich and screw the rest of society.

[Baylor]

This is not a valid rebuttal.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Baylor

This is not a valid rebuttal.

?? Why isn't it valid?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

?? Why isn't it valid?

Cos some people don't like to hear it.