Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted misleadingly about a report on Pentagon financial practices. (Susan Walsh/AP)
By Salvador Rizzo December 4 at 3:00 AM “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”
— Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), in a tweet, Dec. 2, 2018
The Defense Department is awash with money. So much money that neither the staff nor 1,200 auditors could make sense of where it all went. (The Pentagon recently failed its first big audit in history.)
Enter Ocasio-Cortez. She supports expanding Medicare to people under 65, what’s known as single-payer or Medicare-for-all. But the big question is how to pay for all that health care. According to an estimate from the Urban Institute, the price tag on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all proposal would be $32 trillion over 10 years.
Maybe the Pentagon has a few trillion dollars lying around somewhere, as Ocasio-Cortez implied? Let’s find out.
The Facts Ocasio-Cortez claimed on Twitter that $21 trillion in “Pentagon accounting errors” could have paid for 66 percent of the Medicare-for-all proposal. Her tweet references an article in the Nation, a left-leaning magazine. The specific line about the missing $21 trillion comes from research by Mark Skidmore, an economics professor at Michigan State University.
Skidmore has been tracking opaque federal budget moves for years. He tallied $21 trillion in unsupported accounting adjustments at the Pentagon from 1998 to 2015. The department’s comptroller says these are budgetary moves that “lack supporting documentation ... or are not tied to specific accounting transactions.”
In 2001, for example, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld testified to Congress that “we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” For 2015, the Pentagon reported $6.5 trillion in “unsupported journal voucher adjustments.”
Skidmore contends that the Pentagon has competent personnel and is no more complex than a large multinational corporation, which makes the trillion-dollar accounting gaps all the more puzzling.
“The ongoing and repeated nature of the unsupported journal voucher adjustments coupled with the seemingly enormous size of the adjustments warrants the attention of both citizens and elected officials,” Skidmore wrote in a 2017 paper, adding later, “It should be feasible to track revenues flowing in and expenditures flowing out, and share this information in a format that can be understood by literate people.”
Regardless, in the situation Skidmore is describing, the $21 trillion is not one big pot of dormant money collecting dust somewhere. It’s the sum of all transactions — both inflows and outflows — for which the Defense Department did not have adequate documentation. “The same dollar could be accounted for many times,” as Philip Klein wrote in the Washington Examiner.
Skidmore’s paper clearly talks about Pentagon “assets” and “liabilities.” This key distinction was duly noted in the Nation article that Ocasio-Cortez referenced on Twitter.
To be clear, Skidmore, in a report coauthored with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who complained about similar plugs in HUD financial statements, does not contend that all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding. And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out. But the Pentagon’s bookkeeping is so obtuse, Skidmore and Fitts added, that it is impossible to trace the actual sources and destinations of the $21 trillion.
But it did not appear in her tweet, which clearly implied that the $21 trillion could have been used to pay for 66 percent of the $32 trillion in estimated Medicare-for-All costs.
“To clarify, this is to say that we only demand fiscal details [with health and education], rarely elsewhere,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a follow-up tweet.
“The point, I think, was more about how we care so little about the ‘how do you pay for it’ when we are talking about war and military spending,” her spokesman wrote in an email. “It’s only when we are talking about investing in the physical and economic well-being of our citizenry that we become concerned with the price tags.”
Would Bernie Sanders's 'Medicare for All' save $2 trillion? | Fact Checker Democrats across the country are touting 'Medicare for All,' but many candidates are leaving out important context. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)
That’s not the argument coming through in her original tweet, which has been retweeted by nearly 25,000 users. Most people reading the tweet are likely to take its flawed comparison at face value.
It’s also worth pointing out that Skidmore’s total covers 17 years (1998 to 2015), whereas the Urban Institute’s $32 trillion estimate for Sanders’s Medicare plan covers 10 years. So the two numbers are not apples-to-apples to begin with.
After this fact check was published, Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood said “DoD hasn’t received $21 trillion in (nominal) appropriated funding across the entirety of American history.”
“Money Congress appropriates for DoD stays at the Department of the Treasury until they make a payment on behalf of DoD,” he said. “Any funds that remain unspent at the end of the period of availability will remain at the Department of the Treasury and are no longer available to DoD at that point.”
The Pentagon is working to fix the accounting gaps, Sherwood added, "by reducing the labor needed to manually enter the Journal Vouchers and reducing the time it takes to perform research” for account reconciliation.
Let’s put $21 trillion in context. The entire national debt is $21.8 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, total defense spending from 1998 to 2015 was nearly $9 trillion. The CBO estimates $7 trillion in defense spending from 2019 to 2028.
In other words, completely defunding the military for the next decade would yield only one-fifth of $32 trillion. That’s a much better way of illustrating the cost of Medicare-for-All.
The Pinocchio Test Swing and a miss!
Ocasio-Cortez is not the first Twitter user to mangle information from a news report. But it’s unconvincing to try to pass this off as a rhetorical point being misread. She cited the $21 trillion figure and said “66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”
That’s a direct comparison. It’s badly flawed. The same article she referenced on Twitter would have set her straight. The tweet is still up, probably causing confusion. So we will award Four Pinocchios to Ocasio-Cortez.
Wait .... posting stupid idiotic emails with no basis in reality is news now???? I thought that it was called Fake News - that's what Trump has been claiming.
smh.
And another fantastic grouping and tarnishing of everyone who doesn't align with your view points as "The Left" .... I see that on a lot of your posts. Nice.
I’m not even AOC’s biggest fan, but the sheer irony of BPG- a dude who got embarrassed into meek silence with such takes as “there’s a reasonable argument that Trump isn’t racist”, “Trump isn’t an idiot”, “Dave Rubin isn’t an idiot”, etc. - calling someone else “embarrassing” is a bit much.
Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Thursday said she is interested in a seat on the powerful House committee overseeing the financial sector.
Ocasio-Cortez told Hill.TV in an interview Thursday that she’s "looking at" serving on the House Financial Services Committee, which leads congressional regulation and supervision of U.S. banks, lenders, insurers and housing industry.
The Financial Services panel is one of the most sought-after House committees. It’s members wield significant influence over Washington’s relationship with Wall Street, and the panel offers access to millions of dollars in financial sector campaign donations.
The committee is also is expected to lead several investigations into President Trump’s personal finances, along with potential connections between his businesses and Russian oligarchs...
Yep. AOC is not allowed to reference a TRILLION dollars in unaccounted for money as a source of funds for medicare for all, but Trump can say Mexico will pay for the wall and they fall all over themselves with how smart he is... lmao
She's got the numbers wrong, but she has the thinking right.
If you can harness all the waste, I bet it makes a pretty big dent in Medicare for all.. or whatever it ends up being called
.
I think it's really sad, that exactly what I said happens happened with this board. Just about everyone in this thread on the left said "But TRUMP"! Defending the same half logic half lies that Trump constantly perpetuates. I literally said it in my second post but these guys just cannot help themselves. If Trump is embarrassing....so is this.
However, she is not a fringe person anymore, The Intercept is promoting this person as a Presidential candidate before she is even eligible. Holding this person to a lower standard because she is a woman and a minority is actual sexism. Coddling her viewpoints because she is a minority is actual racism.
To your point, I know I have digressed. Again, it's the same with Trump, a lot of his ideas are based on a solid argument but he just bungles the delivery and facts on a consistent basis. You're right, the idea to cut Military spending isn't a bad one but the delivery and facts....were absolutely butchered. Holding her to a different standard is hilarious leftist hypocrisy.
Wait .... posting stupid idiotic emails with no basis in reality is news now???? I thought that it was called Fake News - that's what Trump has been claiming.
smh.
And another fantastic grouping and tarnishing of everyone who doesn't align with your view points as "The Left" .... I see that on a lot of your posts. Nice.
So me calling this lie/fake news out means she doesn't align with my views on the left? Not following the logic here.
She's got the numbers wrong, but she has the thinking right.
If you can harness all the waste, I bet it makes a pretty big dent in Medicare for all.. or whatever it ends up being called
.
I think it's really sad, that exactly what I said happens happened with this board. Just about everyone in this thread on the left said "But TRUMP"! Defending the same half logic half lies that Trump constantly perpetuates. I literally said it in my second post but these guys just cannot help themselves. If Trump is embarrassing....so is this.
However, she is not a fringe person anymore, The Intercept is promoting this person as a Presidential candidate before she is even eligible. Holding this person to a lower standard because she is a woman and a minority is actual sexism. Coddling her viewpoints because she is a minority is actual racism.
To your point, I know I have digressed. Again, it's the same with Trump, a lot of his ideas are based on a solid argument but he just bungles the delivery and facts on a consistent basis. You're right, the idea to cut Military spending isn't a bad one but the delivery and facts....were absolutely butchered. Holding her to a different standard is hilarious leftist hypocrisy.
Oh it's not even JUST military spending. There is so much waste.... Think about it. Prior to the midterms, what did Trump spend stumping for his candidates? I don't know, but it was a lot.
How much has he spent on Golf...Again, I'm not sure, but it's lot. (I did it again didn't I LOL)
But all the money spent on Pork Barrel things. I could go on, but I bet you know as much as I do so why bother... I know you understand wasteful spending by the Federal Government.
We have so many things that need addressed. In no particular order:
Infrastructure (our roads and bridges are a mess and getting worse)
Veteran Care (not just health and mental care, but we have entirely too many homeless Vets and I can't find a reason that we don't address this or at least try)
Health Insurance (obviously, I'm for some kind of cradle to grave coverage that individuals pay into like I do for Medicare. But this business of paying $2500 a month for healthcare for 2 people is crazy....)
Voting regulations and systems (they need addressed, I'm tired of this BS surrounding elections. Did you know that if a winning $300 million dollar lottery ticket is sold, within hours they can tell you what store it was sold at. We have the technology to fix it, Politicians don't want it fixed. They can's screw with it if it's fixed)
Gerrymandering (I don't even want to try to explain this one)
Point is, if we stop the waste, we could afford these things..
Are you as tired of all the dog whistle crisis stuff as I am?
Certainly, I can promise you this. Cortez ideas are not rooted in history. She wants to add more government, I don't know of any country in History that added more government agencies and controls that reduced their spend.
Just like almost anything in life, the bigger it gets, the more it needs to be sustained.
Want to constantly audit military spending? Pay a legion of accountants.
Want to have universal healthcare? Bring on the legion of bureaucracy it will take to implement over decades.
Tough for me to take someone's plan to spend less serious when A) their plan is easily debunked and B) wants to make the government bigger. She is well intended and her idea is something I agree with. She is just a moron and I have no idea why someone with GREAT ideas like Ro Khanna isn't being pushed into the media spotlight.....while this moron dominates leftists news.
One man's waste is another man's retirement plan. Somebody is always making (pocketing) the money that is being wasted, good luck fixing that.
When Trump spends 75 million to move troops to the Border to answer some dog whistle garbage then let's them sit there in the heat with virtually nothing to do, who's retirement plan are we taking money from?
Cortez may have her head and heart in the right place.. Cut waste, spend the money on things that REALLY matter. Sounds like a good plan, Getting there is the problem.
Cortez may have her head and heart in the right place.. Cut waste, spend the money on things that REALLY matter. Sounds like a good plan, Getting there is the problem.
But I wish she'd do some fact checking first.
I have found that the left is full of ideologues and I agree with most progressive policy, however most of them are not rooted in reality. There are a few I like....ironically West Coast people. Good Ideas, with sound plans. Cortez is a typical college student with great ideas and absolutely no idea how to get there. Flat out embarrassing to promote this person as a thought leader.
One man's waste is another man's retirement plan. Somebody is always making (pocketing) the money that is being wasted, good luck fixing that.
When Trump spends 75 million to move troops to the Border to answer some dog whistle garbage then let's them sit there in the heat with virtually nothing to do, who's retirement plan are we taking money from?
Not sure who's we are taking from, but there is a MIC company somewhere profiting from the logistics of that move, you can count on that.
So me calling this lie/fake news out means she doesn't align with my views on the left? Not following the logic here.
The fake news comment from me is that Trump rails against all the negative press and media he gets - he calls it fake news.
He goes on incoherent, inaccurate, bordering on witness tampering tweet rages --- the press cover the content of his tweets and discuss how wrong or how unhinged his comments are .... and Trump then calls that fake news.
AND ... As I have said multiple times - you can find idiots posting idiotic things online from both the left and the right. By grabbing moronic things that people on the extremes post online and acting like it somehow represents the majority who are 99% more centrist is asinine. I'll go grab some examples of stupid things "The Right" have posted online and post them and then say "This is how the Right thinks" .... and maybe you'll get my point? And adding "Most of the left" doesn't reduce the redundancy of the comments.
The Right is so full of hate they can't even recognize a doctored photo - even one as badly photoshopped as this one! No wonder the Right are so full of hate.
The Right is so full of hate they can't even recognize a doctored photo - even one as badly photoshopped as this one! No wonder the Right are so full of hate.
Lets be fair, people in general cannot spot a photo shopped photo, regardless of how awful it looks. that's not a partisan issue and anyone with democrat or republican friends on facebook or twitter can verify that.
So me calling this lie/fake news out means she doesn't align with my views on the left? Not following the logic here.
The fake news comment from me is that Trump rails against all the negative press and media he gets - he calls it fake news.
He goes on incoherent, inaccurate, bordering on witness tampering tweet rages --- the press cover the content of his tweets and discuss how wrong or how unhinged his comments are .... and Trump then calls that fake news.
AND ... As I have said multiple times - you can find idiots posting idiotic things online from both the left and the right. By grabbing moronic things that people on the extremes post online and acting like it somehow represents the majority who are 99% more centrist is asinine. I'll go grab some examples of stupid things "The Right" have posted online and post them and then say "This is how the Right thinks" .... and maybe you'll get my point? And adding "Most of the left" doesn't reduce the redundancy of the comments.
We are talking about an elected official and you posted a right wing meme page that has a comment from a 70 year old man that can clearly not understand this is a chop. Not comparable. I am not in disagreement with your assessment of Trump, but I don't see the correlation, this thread isn't about Trump, like at all YOU made it about Trump.
My views on the left are equally as balanced as my views on the right so you are barking up the wrong tree. Something I would urge you to take notice of on this board. Count the number of Right wing posts versus the number of Left wing posts and you will start to understand why it SEEMS like I am constantly railing on the left. I am painfully aware of the rights flaws because they are posted in thread at least 5 times per day in this forum.
In addition at no point, did I even imply that I thought that this post was "how the left thinks".
Regardless, in the situation Skidmore is describing, the $21 trillion is not one big pot of dormant money collecting dust somewhere. It’s the sum of all transactions — both inflows and outflows — for which the Defense Department did not have adequate documentation. “The same dollar could be accounted for many times,” as Philip Klein wrote in the Washington Examiner.
The Right is so full of hate they can't even recognize a doctored photo - even one as badly photoshopped as this one! No wonder the Right are so full of hate.
Lets be fair, people in general cannot spot a photo shopped photo, regardless of how awful it looks. that's not a partisan issue and anyone with democrat or republican friends on facebook or twitter can verify that.
Thank you. That's pretty much my whole point - you can take anything posted by an idiot on the left or right and claim it as an example of one political side/party side or the other .... but it does NOT actually mean that it's representative of anything more than the extremes.
Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Thursday said she is interested in a seat on the powerful House committee overseeing the financial sector.
Ocasio-Cortez told Hill.TV in an interview Thursday that she’s "looking at" serving on the House Financial Services Committee, which leads congressional regulation and supervision of U.S. banks, lenders, insurers and housing industry.
The Financial Services panel is one of the most sought-after House committees. It’s members wield significant influence over Washington’s relationship with Wall Street, and the panel offers access to millions of dollars in financial sector campaign donations.
The committee is also is expected to lead several investigations into President Trump’s personal finances, along with potential connections between his businesses and Russian oligarchs...
Not surprising as they are placing Mad Maxine Waters in charge of the House Financial Committee. Obi Wan Cortesz will have to fight for Mad Maxine's crumbs.
Lets be fair, people in general cannot spot a photo shopped photo, regardless of how awful it looks. that's not a partisan issue and anyone with democrat or republican friends on facebook or twitter can verify that.
It's hilarious to me. On a daily basis I see memes from both sides on FB that are so blatantly false it takes an entire 30 seconds to do a fact check and debunk it.
When I point that out to a GOP friend I get called out as a liberal. When I point it out to a friend that's a Democrat I get called a Trump supporter. Both sides are equally as guilty.
Lets be fair, people in general cannot spot a photo shopped photo, regardless of how awful it looks. that's not a partisan issue and anyone with democrat or republican friends on facebook or twitter can verify that.
It's hilarious to me. On a daily basis I see memes from both sides on FB that are so blatantly false it takes an entire 30 seconds to do a fact check and debunk it.
When I point that out to a GOP friend I get called out as a liberal. When I point it out to a friend that's a Democrat I get called a Trump supporter. Both sides are equally as guilty.
I stopped going to Facebook over this. I can't help myself, I WANT to correct them, but even with very clear and succinct debunking they just strawman me into a fury. I can't deal with hyper partisanship and I can't put family on ignore, so I just don't go there anymore.
Lets be fair, people in general cannot spot a photo shopped photo, regardless of how awful it looks. that's not a partisan issue and anyone with democrat or republican friends on facebook or twitter can verify that.
It's hilarious to me. On a daily basis I see memes from both sides on FB that are so blatantly false it takes an entire 30 seconds to do a fact check and debunk it.
When I point that out to a GOP friend I get called out as a liberal. When I point it out to a friend that's a Democrat I get called a Trump supporter. Both sides are equally as guilty.
oh I agree on that. I have a few "friends" on FB that will post that meme with Obama putting the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Weinstein and Cosby etc, I will comment that its fake then I get "whatever libtard" from the poster. I think its hilarious, because I don't think a person on this board would consider me liberal lol.
No actually it does in the original post but not in yours. This person is an elected official, you posted a comment from a meme page.
I wasn't taking your post in isolation ... But basing it on "News" stories and posters here posting multiple stories within the last week about such things as random comments from people claiming Charlie Brown being racist, that Trump supporters are sexually insecure and other such tripe. And if you'll forgive me - the OP doesn't try to suggest there are morons on all sides - it is a hatchet job on AOC. If it's more than that - then I didn't read it properly and like your side step on the Guliani gaff on his Twitter posts - I'm not going to go back and spend time reading junk.
Regardless, in the situation Skidmore is describing, the $21 trillion is not one big pot of dormant money collecting dust somewhere. It’s the sum of all transactions — both inflows and outflows — for which the Defense Department did not have adequate documentation. “The same dollar could be accounted for many times,” as Philip Klein wrote in the Washington Examiner.
not sure where she says that
First, she's using fake numbers - or, at a minimum, misleading numbers. From the Wash. Post:
Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that Skidmore’s total covers 17 years (1998 to 2015), whereas the Urban Institute’s $32 trillion estimate for Sanders’s Medicare plan covers 10 years. So the two numbers are not apples-to-apples to begin with.
Skidmore is the Mich. St. econ professor that talked about the 21 trillion in accounting for the number. Which was over 17 years.
Sanders Number (which Cortez cited) of 32 trillion for medicare for all, only accounted for 10 years worth of expenditures.
Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that Skidmore’s total covers 17 years (1998 to 2015), whereas the Urban Institute’s $32 trillion estimate for Sanders’s Medicare plan covers 10 years. So the two numbers are not apples-to-apples to begin with.
Also lost in all of this is:
Quote:
To be clear, Skidmore, in a report coauthored with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who complained about similar plugs in HUD financial statements, does not contend that all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding. And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out. But the Pentagon’s bookkeeping is so obtuse, Skidmore and Fitts added, that it is impossible to trace the actual sources and destinations of the $21 trillion.
Now, if the argument is our gov't. can't even track spending, funding, etc? I whole heartedly agree.
Trump does this exact type of butchering of the facts and it's a week long Trevor Noah skit played out on cable news. How dumb is he, incompetent, unfit for office. Cortez does it.....and they start trying to see the point behind the sloppy analysis. It's a pathetic display of tribalism.
Do I understand the point she is trying to make....YES, the same way I can decipher the points (most times) Trump is trying to make. Even if they are embarrassingly off target, I am not a tribal moron who see's Orange man bad and young woman dumb.
The fact that so many RUSHED to her defense on this is pathetic. The same people incessantly bagging on Trump for the same exact type of "fuzzy math" takes. If you're (not YOU you're) going to be a partisan hack, fine but don't act like you're anything else.
Regardless, in the situation Skidmore is describing, the $21 trillion is not one big pot of dormant money collecting dust somewhere. It’s the sum of all transactions — both inflows and outflows — for which the Defense Department did not have adequate documentation. “The same dollar could be accounted for many times,” as Philip Klein wrote in the Washington Examiner.
not sure where she says that
First, she's using fake numbers - or, at a minimum, misleading numbers. From the Wash. Post:
Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that Skidmore’s total covers 17 years (1998 to 2015), whereas the Urban Institute’s $32 trillion estimate for Sanders’s Medicare plan covers 10 years. So the two numbers are not apples-to-apples to begin with.
What is fake about these numbers? I can understand misleading numbers, which we'll get to in a second, but how is it fake?
Quote:
Skidmore is the Mich. St. econ professor that talked about the 21 trillion in accounting for the number. Which was over 17 years.
Sanders Number (which Cortez cited) of 32 trillion for medicare for all, only accounted for 10 years worth of expenditures.
This part of the article was entirely misleading. Sanders has never said the cost of his UNI program would be 30 trillion over 10 years. Bernie has actually said that his plan would cost only 1.25t a year. the 30 trillion number comes from no one in Sander's camp. That number was decided on by a libertarian think tank out of George Mason: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/fe...althcare-system
Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that Skidmore’s total covers 17 years (1998 to 2015), whereas the Urban Institute’s $32 trillion estimate for Sanders’s Medicare plan covers 10 years. So the two numbers are not apples-to-apples to begin with.
Also lost in all of this is:
Quote:
To be clear, Skidmore, in a report coauthored with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who complained about similar plugs in HUD financial statements, does not contend that all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding. And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out. But the Pentagon’s bookkeeping is so obtuse, Skidmore and Fitts added, that it is impossible to trace the actual sources and destinations of the $21 trillion.
Now, if the argument is our gov't. can't even track spending, funding, etc? I whole heartedly agree.
[/quote] I'm actually glad that our DoD does such horrible bookkeeping as it gives them plausible deniability in regards to funding terrorists and narcos.
I find this thread to be entirely misleading. But what can I expect? there's a reason I don't post in this forum anymore. It's just the same 4 people who swear off name calling politicians unless they're Democrats, in which case they consider them subhuman. It's disgusting.
It's not that the pentagon cant find where the money went it's that they are refusing to do it since it would form them to reveal top secret ops most likely. I seriously doubt they LOST the money.
No one calls them out on it because they know people will die doing it. I promise you that you and your entire family can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if they so desire it.
It's not that the pentagon cant find where the money went it's that they are refusing to do it since it would form them to reveal top secret ops most likely. I seriously doubt they LOST the money.
No one calls them out on it because they know people will die doing it. I promise you that you and your entire family can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if they so desire it.
If you read the Washington Post article it explains the situation. She is talking out of her ass.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
She doesn't scare me, at least no more than the other idiots in our government on both sides. She's just funnier than most of them and the memes crack me up.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
She's a card carrying member of the A A M Local 6 7/8...
Not wishing to be argumentative - I think what she said is accurate.
"a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month."
followed up with
"Congress as a body, GOP included, has the power. No indiv. member can issue a subpoena"
No doubt some right wing stooges saw her tweet and started posting/claiming it was a threat.....
As for the maturity level of the tweet - I agree and don't like it. I don't think it's becoming of someone in public office ... with that said, there is no doubt a movement that are willing and able to respond using the President's own standards .... these two tweets are absolutely nothing compared to the tripe and crap the President has tweeted.
My biggest beef with my liberal friends is this very issue. You can't rag on Trump for acting like a jackass and then turn around and act the same exact way. You're either above it, or you're complicit. I don't see a gray area in this.
I'm not going to argue with you on one issue. Hypocrisy is on display all over the political spectrum, no doubt.
But you have - in your last post - implied the posts from AOC are as bad as the tweet storms and crap that Trump as posted. Personally I don't think that's accurate.
I didn't mean to imply that, they are not the same. I am simply pointing out the same people applauding her, constantly rag on Trump (correctly) for the same things.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
I don't think she scares anybody. I think she is a idiot. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is funny. She is just dumb like most Liberals, but she doesn't scare anybody.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
I don't think she scares anybody. I think she is a idiot. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is funny. She is just dumb like most Liberals, but she doesn't scare anybody.
Socialist around the world - "we just want water and toilet paper"
The Breitbart guy who spends half his time on this board arguing “oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize this blatantly obvious racist thing I parroted was racist” trying to argue someone - anyone - is dumb is ridiculous and laughable.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
The guy who uses the wrong racial slurs on people is here to talk about idiots!
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
The “can somebody please tell me whether or not Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons? I swear I heard they did, I don’t know how to use Google because I have a job” guy calling someone a “ridiculous idiot” is priceless.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
The “can somebody please tell me whether or not Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons? I swear I heard they did, I don’t know how to use Google because I have a job” guy calling someone a “ridiculous idiot” is priceless.
I can't call you and CHS idiots anymore because you report me to the Refs and I get banned.
She's right about defense spending and the Border wall.. It's not a liberal or conservative thing.... It's simple facts.
We are spending money on Defense to help the military industrial machine, but we forget about helping those that have already paid a price... Like our Veterans.
As for the Wall, raise your hand if you think we need a wall to stop immigrants from Flying into the USA, or coming by boat or coming in thru Canada... How about a wall on the northern border.... Maybe stop those crazy Canadians from crossing over and bringing Cheap Medicines....
As for landing on the sun,,, Pretty sure she's smarter than that. But then, she is in Congress so you never really know.
The Trumps are idiots for poking the bear here. while I think the Democrats will without a doubt seek remedy for Trumps actions.. as they should, I doubt they will be obsessed with it. At least I hope not.
We have other things to fix... Roads and Bridges, Healthcare, Veterans, Immigration and we need to regain our place in the world... Something we've lost under Trump.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
I don't think she scares anybody. I think she is a idiot. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is funny. She is just dumb like most Liberals, but she doesn't scare anybody.
She's an idiot but you support Individual 1?
If you could just man up and admit they're both idiots I could understand and agree with you. But to point the finger in only one direction here makes me think you feel you have the beginning of a comedy routine.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
The “can somebody please tell me whether or not Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons? I swear I heard they did, I don’t know how to use Google because I have a job” guy calling someone a “ridiculous idiot” is priceless.
I can't call you and CHS idiots anymore because you report me to the Refs and I get banned.
Laughing out loud at the “I can’t juggle both being employed *and* learning how to use the world’s most basic search engine” guy complaining that he can’t craft insults.
I think it's funny that they doctor the photos of her. Always the eyes.
the sexual frustration they have is extremely funny. Just the other day I saw Fox News talking about her clothing for 5 minutes. Just look at the people posting memes in the thread. For the most part, they all hate politics and this forum, but they'll find any reason to talk about AOC.
I like to talk about AOC because she is a ridiculous idiot. Its fun to see the wacky Libs try to stick up for her.
The “can somebody please tell me whether or not Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons? I swear I heard they did, I don’t know how to use Google because I have a job” guy calling someone a “ridiculous idiot” is priceless.
I can't call you and CHS idiots anymore because you report me to the Refs and I get banned.
Naturally conservatives can't deal with personal responsibility.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
She will flame out by 2024...which is when she can first declare
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
She will flame out by 2024...which is when she can first declare
Whatever your feelings on AOC are-
Look at who the current president is.
By that precedent, *anyone* can win the White House.
It amazes me how much this woman scares those on the right already and she hasn't even declared yet. You can always tell how scared they are of someone by how hard they attack them. It's Individual 1's playbook.
She will flame out by 2024...which is when she can first declare
Whatever your feelings on AOC are-
Look at who the current president is.
By that precedent, *anyone* can win the White House.
So you are promoting a race to the bottom in which the opposition party puts up someone worse then the last?
We need to revert back in time when there was qualifications out side of being born to meet in order to vote.
while I think the Democrats will without a doubt seek remedy for Trumps actions.. as they should, I doubt they will be obsessed with it. At least I hope not.
I agree with all of your post.....but this quote.....come on man you cannot be serious? Not obsessed with Trump? Bro, the Dems have been....what's a word for more than obsessed.....possessed (?) by Trump.
It's Monday morning so maybe I missed some context.....the Dems are way more than obsessed with Trump though.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has admirable passion, but needs some schooling in energy economics. The cost of renewable energy is dropping fast, but is still more expensive in many applications than traditional fossil fuels like coal or oil. That’s one reason that adoption of wind and solar power has been slow, and that many countries, including the United States, underwrite renewables with subsidies and tax credits. The International Energy Agency predicts in its 2018 report that “the share of renewables in meeting global energy demand is expected to grow by one-fifth in the next five years to reach 12.4% in 2023.”
The share of renewables remains low because wind and sun power are effective in producing electricity but not, for instance, in powering automobiles or airplanes. Renewables will generate nearly 30 percent of global electricity in 2023, a big jump from 24 percent in 2017, but will still account for only 3.8 percent of transportation fuel, compared to 3.4 percent in 2018.
More important, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez should know that lower-income and minority communities in the U.S. are disproportionately disadvantaged by higher energy costs. A 2016 study by the National Research Defense Council found that low income households “spend, on average, 7.2 percent of their income on utility bills…That is more than triple the 2.3 percent spent by higher-income households for electricity, heating and cooling.” Were we to ditch coal, natural gas and oil in favor of higher-cost renewables, electricity prices would soar, especially harming just those folks whom the young progressive says she wants to help.
Evidence of the staggering costs imposed by green policies is provided by other IEA data, which compares electricity costs in different countries. In the United States, the cost of electricity for households earlier this year was $129 per megawatt. In Germany, a country that leapt into renewables with enthusiasm, and imposed hefty taxes to squelch demand for fossil fuels, the cost is $343.59. Does Ms. Ocasio-Cortez really want to impose a near-tripling of electricity costs on Americans?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez might want to visit France, a sympathetic left-leaning country, which is currently convulsed by people who are really, really angry over recently-enacted green policies of the kind that she might embrace. President Emmanuel Macron raised taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline, hoping to make driving more expensive and thereby discourage fossil fuel use, setting off the worst rioting that country has seen in a generation.
It is not the high-income elites who are taking to the streets, breaking store windows and burning cars – it is middle class and blue collar people who think Macron has no sympathy for their travails, for their ever-higher cost of living and, in particular, for the cost of their commute.
Note that 70 percent of the French people support the protests, while at the same time 79 percent of the country, according to a poll conducted last year, fret about climate change.
The lesson for Macron, for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and other policy makers is that people may be concerned about global warming and increasing emissions, but they are considerably more worried about making ends meet.
Polling on the subject bears this out. While a global Pew study found that 54 percent of people in 40 countries thought that climate change was a “very serious problem,” a survey conducted by the UN at about the same time, which elicited almost 7 million responses, showed people ranking climate change the least of their concerns. Global warming came in dead last behind better education, better health care, better job opportunities and thirteen other issues.
Even in the U.S., where 6 of 10 respondents to the Pew poll say their community is already being impacted by climate change, the issue ranks 17th in a list of policy priorities.
Why this disconnect? One reason is that the extreme alarmism from environmentalists has numbed us to the perils of rising emissions. If you are endlessly lectured about how eating meat or driving your Chevy will cause entire populations to be swept away by rising sea levels, it becomes overwhelming. People tune out.
It is also true that some of the wilder predictions of disaster have failed to materialize, leading to profound skepticism. Al Gore’s doomed polar bears, for instance, seem to actually be thriving. According to one source, their numbers are increasing except in one location, where in fact they are challenged by too much sea ice, as opposed to too little.
Because of abundant natural gas displacing coal, the United States is the only major country in which emissions have been dropping over the past decade. We are not the problem. It is China, whose carbon output is already nearly twice that of the U.S. A recent report from the Global Carbon Project blames a predicted rise in worldwide emissions this year on “a rise in coal consumption in China, which accounts for more than 46% of the projected increase in industrial CO2 emissions in 2018.”
The U.S. is blessed with abundant energy, an important competitive advantage. The Trump White House pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord because the demands of that agreement would have destroyed that advantage and hobbled our growth, while demanding virtually no commitments from China.
Americans are sensible people. We want clean air and water, and we want to curtail the carbon emissions that appear a danger to our world. But, we do not want to sacrifice our economic wellbeing on the altar of climate dogma. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should be careful before promoting policies that would build a cleaner planet on the backs of American workers.
Duh..most of us know it’s all about defacing women and minorities now. Keeping them in the places the tumpians demand them to be. Get control over their bodies and reproduction and limit their healthcare. Build walls to keep out the poor and wretched. We know.
Can someone please explain how because one is a women and/or minority what they say is not allowed to be criticized simply because of those facts? Yet when its a conservative women running for office (Palin) they can say the most vile and disgusting things about her and her family, and its all game.
Can someone please explain how because one is a women and/or minority what they say is not allowed to be criticized simply because of those facts? Yet when its a conservative women running for office (Palin) they can say the most vile and disgusting things about her and her family, and its all game.
Its weird.
Well if you listen to both, I think they're pretty equal in their own right. Neither fit to hold the office being discussed. So yeah, if one is fair game so is the other.
Can someone please explain how because one is a women and/or minority what they say is not allowed to be criticized simply because of those facts? Yet when its a conservative women running for office (Palin) they can say the most vile and disgusting things about her and her family, and its all game.
Its weird.
Well if you listen to both, I think they're pretty equal in their own right. Neither fit to hold the office being discussed. So yeah, if one is fair game so is the other.
I wasn't standing up for Palin btw. I thought the lights were on but no one was home when it came to her. But lets be clear, they mocked her family because she had a disabled grandson, they mocked her teenage daughter for having a baby (huh, yet a lot on here scream about slut shaming right?), they called her stupid etc.
But when you mock AOC, and we have seen already in this thread, you are then a "racist, sexist pig". I am still trying to find out it the double standard is because she is a minority, or because the ones mocking her are right winged.
It's sort of disappointing to see Ro aligned with this nincompoop.
AOC is no nincompoop! lol
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box but she is nowhere near as stupid as Palin, or Trump for that matter. And I like her fire. FYI, Kelly did get caught in a lie, straight out BTW. And Kellyanne has been spreading lies since day one covering for Trump, we all know that is true.
She's going to be fun to watch too, she's got that 'give em hell Harry' thing going for her. But for now, I'll admit that I'm glad I didn't have to decide between her and somebody like Bernie.
Looks like AOC has Jewish ancestry. So are all these Trumpian AOC haters anti semitic?
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski apologizes for using homophobic slur to describe Mike Pompeo
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski apologized on Wednesday for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a “butt-boy.”
Looks like AOC has Jewish ancestry. So are all these Trumpian AOC haters anti semitic?
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski apologizes for using homophobic slur to describe Mike Pompeo
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski apologized on Wednesday for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a “butt-boy.”
Looks like AOC has Jewish ancestry. So are all these Trumpian AOC haters anti semitic?
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski apologizes for using homophobic slur to describe Mike Pompeo
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski apologized on Wednesday for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a “butt-boy.”
It's sort of disappointing to see Ro aligned with this nincompoop.
AOC is no nincompoop! lol
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box but she is nowhere near as stupid as Palin, or Trump for that matter. And I like her fire. FYI, Kelly did get caught in a lie, straight out BTW. And Kellyanne has been spreading lies since day one covering for Trump, we all know that is true.
She's going to be fun to watch too, she's got that 'give em hell Harry' thing going for her. But for now, I'll admit that I'm glad I didn't have to decide between her and somebody like Bernie.
How you can type all of this out and then incessantly rag on Trump for the same behavior is literally the entirety of my issue with this nonsense. If you replaced the pronouns for male pronouns I would assume you were talking about Trump.
Looks like AOC has Jewish ancestry. So are all these Trumpian AOC haters anti semitic?
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski apologizes for using homophobic slur to describe Mike Pompeo
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski apologized on Wednesday for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a “butt-boy.”
It's sort of disappointing to see Ro aligned with this nincompoop.
AOC is no nincompoop! lol
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box but she is nowhere near as stupid as Palin, or Trump for that matter. And I like her fire. FYI, Kelly did get caught in a lie, straight out BTW. And Kellyanne has been spreading lies since day one covering for Trump, we all know that is true.
She's going to be fun to watch too, she's got that 'give em hell Harry' thing going for her. But for now, I'll admit that I'm glad I didn't have to decide between her and somebody like Bernie.
How you can type all of this out and then incessantly rag on Trump for the same behavior is literally the entirety of my issue with this nonsense. If you replaced the pronouns for male pronouns I would assume you were talking about Trump.
The same behavior? What felonies has AOC commited?
It's sort of disappointing to see Ro aligned with this nincompoop.
AOC is no nincompoop! lol
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box but she is nowhere near as stupid as Palin, or Trump for that matter. And I like her fire. FYI, Kelly did get caught in a lie, straight out BTW. And Kellyanne has been spreading lies since day one covering for Trump, we all know that is true.
She's going to be fun to watch too, she's got that 'give em hell Harry' thing going for her. But for now, I'll admit that I'm glad I didn't have to decide between her and somebody like Bernie.
How you can type all of this out and then incessantly rag on Trump for the same behavior is literally the entirety of my issue with this nonsense. If you replaced the pronouns for male pronouns I would assume you were talking about Trump.
The same behavior? What felonies has AOC commited?
It's sort of disappointing to see Ro aligned with this nincompoop.
AOC is no nincompoop! lol
She might not be the sharpest tool in the box but she is nowhere near as stupid as Palin, or Trump for that matter. And I like her fire. FYI, Kelly did get caught in a lie, straight out BTW. And Kellyanne has been spreading lies since day one covering for Trump, we all know that is true.
She's going to be fun to watch too, she's got that 'give em hell Harry' thing going for her. But for now, I'll admit that I'm glad I didn't have to decide between her and somebody like Bernie.
How you can type all of this out and then incessantly rag on Trump for the same behavior is literally the entirety of my issue with this nonsense. If you replaced the pronouns for male pronouns I would assume you were talking about Trump.
The same behavior? What felonies has AOC commited?
You're wasting your time with someone who is trying to troll you. Just ask him where AOC name calls or asks for her political opponents to be jailed. Just put the dude on ignore.
Vox mocked for seeking constitutional overhaul so Ocasio-Cortez can run for president
Liberal political website Vox is getting accused of jumping the shark after publishing an appeal to “fix the Constitution ASAP” so that 29-year-old incoming Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can run for president – claiming “there’s no time like the present to start working to abolish arbitrary qualifications.”
Well at least somebody got Alexandria to shut up for a while to hide the fact she is the smartest of the incoming Democrats!
Well at least you didn't make that mistake. You elected the most stupid person that claimed to be a Republican.
She isn't dumb, she is ignorant and constantly speaking out of turn, saying things with such conviction that turn out to be terribly misguided. If she weren't trying to "own the cons" so often no one would even care about her.
I guess that was my point. I'm just against electing any moron as our president. What's so hilarious is those pointing out she's a moron after they already elected one.
I guess that was my point. I'm just against electing any moron as our president. What's so hilarious is those pointing out she's a moron after they already elected one.
See, that's where you fail. You try to paint all Democrats as the same. I don't do that with Republicans. Somehow, by being controlled in what you listen to, you think every Democrat is the same. They're not. Just like not every Republican is the same.
You just happened to pick the worst one out there to elect as president and can't stop making excuses for him.
You just happened to pick the worst one out there to elect as president and can't stop making excuses for him.
I didn't elect Obama!
And we know why. The exact same reason you started this thread. Deplorable Vambo, just deplorable behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I know you stand proud of this reteric. Just like your dictator who controls you, you’re proud of this deplorable behavior in American today.
You just happened to pick the worst one out there to elect as president and can't stop making excuses for him.
I didn't elect Obama!
And we know why. The exact same reason you started this thread. Deplorable Vambo, just deplorable behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I know you stand proud of this reteric. Just like your dictator who controls you, you’re proud of this deplorable behavior in American today.
I don't always know how to spell rhetoric nor do I ever spell it reteric.
Then this. "They agree with my plan, therefor are scared of me". Not only unnecessary, but very odd logic. Owning the cons because they agree with you.
Good old Sandy...likes the white girl name till it's time to play identity politics
Don't forget Alexandria is also a white girl's name. Unless you don't think the Greeks are white. I never could remember which races are allowed to be white.
Good old Sandy...likes the white girl name till it's time to play identity politics
This is a completely normal thing to say, and not at all bizarre or racially charged.
Almost like he's using that teedub profile just to pop in and troll the board before disappearing for another long rest... I've been trying to figure out who he really is now for sometime. Not sure but I've thought 40, Duty, and Diam amongst others have very similar posting styles.
His posts are brimming with bigotry and hate, that's the only conclusive thing you can discern. But the timing of his appearances, and how he jumps right in like he never missed a second of board time just seems suspicious to me.
He also just got offended, called us unfriendly and ran away saying 'Ciao' when I questioned this. That wasn't suspicious at all.
I don't think there is anything in Scalise's statement to indicate he does not know about variable tax rates. He simply used a high, historically accurate number to emphasize a point, that being that Dems would vote for higher taxes in any case.
I wasn't debating that, I simply agree with her that both parties are guilty of cutting tax breaks to people who financially rape everyday Americans. The GOP probably more so due to their insistence that trickle down economics works.
Yet the GOP/right elected in a morally corupt AND constantly lying pile of President. He’s neither factually correct any time he opens his piehole. Nor is he morally right about damn near anything in his life.
Yet the GOP/right elected in a morally corupt AND constantly lying pile of President. He’s neither factually correct any time he opens his piehole. Nor is he morally right about damn near anything in his life.
But yes....LefTiES ARe BaD.. Laughable.
What are you even talking about? Talk about an angry strawman, holy crap dude, nothing you said has anything to do with what I posted.
Yet the GOP/right elected in a morally corupt AND constantly lying pile of President. He’s neither factually correct any time he opens his piehole. Nor is he morally right about damn near anything in his life.
But yes....LefTiES ARe BaD.. Laughable.
What are you even talking about? Talk about an angry strawman, holy crap dude, nothing you said has anything to do with what I posted.
I guess what I comes down to for me is yes, what she said is askew. But for someone from the right to point out someone on the left saying something askew... um, you all got enough incoherent trump ramblings to sort through and explain before you come knocking on our door.
I guess what I comes down to for me is yes, what she said is askew. But for someone from the right to point out someone on the left saying something askew... um, you all got enough incoherent trump ramblings to sort through and explain before you come knocking on our door.
but that goes both ways. For someone on the left to degrade trump for not knowing what he is talking about, then to back AOC, is well...more knocking on the door.
I think that anyone running for president shouldn't just spout out inaccurate numbers. I think it's also silly to point to one side claiming that the president isn't being truthful while backing another candidate that isn't being truthful.
Any time a candidate spouts out things based on emotions rather than facts there's a problem.
Now I don't see the things AOC says as nefarious the way I do Trump's. But if people are going to throw up the honesty thing as they often do, they should expect that to be a two way street.
She just needs to be more careful and not try to justify it the way she did in her interview. She should have just owned up and said she made a mistake. That would have gone a long way.
I don't think she is dumb, I think she talks like she has experience and has the over confidence of a youth that has not been very confident only to find out they are wrong. Trump does the same thing all the time, the man had zero experience but talks in such absolutes it makes him look stupid.
This has digressed though, the tweet I posted wasn't an indictment on her intelligence it was the acknowledgement that many on the left to far left conflate "their truth" with factual information because to them flaming "their morality" as the absolute truth is more important than facts. At the end of the day the sentiment she is relaying isn't a fringe belief, many on the left think that morals as they see them is the most important issue, even if that same sense of morality isn't shared. That is some word salad, I hope it makes sense to you as it does in my head.
I think that anyone running for president shouldn't just spout out inaccurate numbers. I think it's also silly to point to one side claiming that the president isn't being truthful while backing another candidate that isn't being truthful.
Any time a candidate spouts out things based on emotions rather than facts there's a problem.
Now I don't see the things AOC says as nefarious the way I do Trump's. But if people are going to throw up the honesty thing as they often do, they should expect that to be a two way street.
She just needs to be more careful and not try to justify it the way she did in her interview. She should have just owned up and said she made a mistake. That would have gone a long way.
and would VERY likely have endeared herself to a very large portion of the right. I am intrigued by her policy proposals, I think she is right, radicals change history but being smug and lauding your version of Morality won't help you because a large sector is likely to not agree.
I think morality is more a choice than a mandate. Which is where I feel the right loses a lot of ground. And I don't really believe she's dumb either. I'm just talking about perception and how it opens the door for her to be attacked by the right.
I think we disagree about Trump. I think a lot of his antics aren't honest mistakes at all. I think they are purposeful and used to divide our nation, attack anything that disagrees with him and used as manipulation. I don't actually think he has an honest bone in his body.
Yeah I just don't give him that much credit. I don't think he is that calculated. I think he is an overly emotional windbag who cannot tolerate dissent in any form so he lashes out in baby fits.
I think that anyone running for president shouldn't just spout out inaccurate numbers. I think it's also silly to point to one side claiming that the president isn't being truthful while backing another candidate that isn't being truthful.
Any time a candidate spouts out things based on emotions rather than facts there's a problem.
Now I don't see the things AOC says as nefarious the way I do Trump's. But if people are going to throw up the honesty thing as they often do, they should expect that to be a two way street.
She just needs to be more careful and not try to justify it the way she did in her interview. She should have just owned up and said she made a mistake. That would have gone a long way.
Well, AOC isn't running for President nor can she until 2024 (I think, idc).
I think AOC made a lot of good points about how a lot of people need to be correct and want to be correct. Not just in the big picture stuff, but mainly semantically. I think this is because people want to control a conversation rather than converse. Look at the Cons who say "Everyone deserves access to healthcare" vs AOC who says "Everyone deserves healthcare." AOC has opened up a lot of conversations about military spending and healthcare spending. Even during Obama's glorious democrats, we didn't have conversations about these things. It's great to watch the media go into attack mode over this. Even right now the left are tearing the "Green New Deal" to absolute shreds.
I think AOC should be a lot more careful in what she says as well as her policies. However, I'm not sure what mistake she made, so I see no reason why she should apologize.
Here is an entire thread of her complaining about how often she is fact checked. If she isn't the Trump of the left, I don't know who is. Maybe you are fact checked more often than Sara Huckabee because you put out very controversial stuff almost weekly? Just a guess.
I’ve been trying to get you to better illustrate your thought process in regards to the 50+ YouTube tribute videos you’ve posted dedicated to a guy who likes to burst in on 14 year olds so he can see them naked. For some reason, you keep getting real quiet and disappearing when the subject comes up.
I’m sure you have a reasonable explanation for why you’ve posted over 50+ YouTube tribute videos to a creepy pervert who tries to sneak peeks at nude 14 year olds. Could you help me to understand your thinking, because on the surface it seems really creepy and inappropriate.
Quote:
Three other girls chose to remain anonymous, but told the publication it was "creepy" and "shocking".
Mr Trump said on the Howard Stern radio show in 2005 that he was “allowed”, as the owner of the pageant, to go backstage while the contestants, some as young as 14, were getting dressed.
“You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
I’ve been trying to get you to better illustrate your thought process in regards to the 50+ YouTube tribute videos you’ve posted dedicated to a guy who likes to burst in on 14 year olds so he can see them naked. For some reason, you keep getting real quiet and disappearing when the subject comes up.
I’m sure you have a reasonable explanation for why you’ve posted over 50+ YouTube tribute videos to a creepy pervert who tries to sneak peeks at nude 14 year olds. Could you help me to understand your thinking, because on the surface it seems really creepy and inappropriate.
Quote:
Three other girls chose to remain anonymous, but told the publication it was "creepy" and "shocking".
Mr Trump said on the Howard Stern radio show in 2005 that he was “allowed”, as the owner of the pageant, to go backstage while the contestants, some as young as 14, were getting dressed.
“You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
Stop wasting your time PDF. I ran some speech analysis algorithms against his posts a while back and it spit out the 97% probability that Mrs. 40 is a latex doll with butt wax from a badger for lipstick. I can in no way vouch for this data as being accurate, but it was damn fun to read.
neoliberal rag WaPo posted false information in their fact check lol
Did you just yell FAKE NEWS at the Washington Post???
BAWHAWhahahahahahahaha
I feel like a proud papa who's babe just came of age.
Creepy. But you must have me confused with someone else. Other than liking Liz Bruenig and believing Jamal Khashoggi was killed by Saudi Arabia, you'll be hard pressed to find me ever expressing praise to WaPo. It's a tax break for Bezos and gives him a larger soapbox to speak on. I remember last month you guys calling it leftist rag though. I remember telling you and a few others they weren't.
The media is attempting an establishment hit on AOC imho. Just like they do to Bernie, because progressive liberal politics are hated by the rich regardless of party.
The media is attempting an establishment hit on AOC imho. Just like they do to Bernie, because progressive liberal politics are hated by the rich regardless of party.
Yes, yes that's it. They are making her tweet and say those things dangit!
The media is attempting an establishment hit on AOC imho. Just like they do to Bernie, because progressive liberal politics are hated by the rich regardless of party.
Yes, yes that's it. They are making her tweet and say those things dangit!
I don't agree with every word she says or tweets, but she is nowhere near being on the same level of crazy that Trump is... She scares the establishment, period. She also scares small minded GOPers.
Your entitled to your opinion, but theres not a single person that I know that "fears" AOC.
In fact, most on the right that I know, want her to keep it up because she is the poster child for what you are going to get with far lefties - which will drive people away.
My neighbor is a councilman, he said just yesterday "every time she speaks, I can almost hear a new registration card filled out republican"
Your entitled to your opinion, but theres not a single person that I know that "fears" AOC.
In fact, most on the right that I know, want her to keep it up because she is the poster child for what you are going to get with far lefties - which will drive people away.
My neighbor is a councilman, he said just yesterday "every time she speaks, I can almost hear a new registration card filled out republican"
Yes, I’m sure Ocasio-Cortez is going to lead to a ton of people saying “You know, I never cared much for politics before, but I think I’m going to join the party headed by the senile racist game show host”
Your entitled to your opinion, but theres not a single person that I know that "fears" AOC.
In fact, most on the right that I know, want her to keep it up because she is the poster child for what you are going to get with far lefties - which will drive people away.
My neighbor is a councilman, he said just yesterday "every time she speaks, I can almost hear a new registration card filled out republican"
Yes, I’m sure Ocasio-Cortez is going to lead to a ton of people saying “You know, I never cared much for politics before, but I think I’m going to join the party headed by the senile racist game show host”
Your entitled to your opinion, but theres not a single person that I know that "fears" AOC.
In fact, most on the right that I know, want her to keep it up because she is the poster child for what you are going to get with far lefties - which will drive people away.
My neighbor is a councilman, he said just yesterday "every time she speaks, I can almost hear a new registration card filled out republican"
Yes, I’m sure Ocasio-Cortez is going to lead to a ton of people saying “You know, I never cared much for politics before, but I think I’m going to join the party headed by the senile racist game show host”
Honestly it's good. The quicker Republicans start viewing climate change as an issue and understand that gay people are finally l human, the better America will be.
The media is attempting an establishment hit on AOC imho. Just like they do to Bernie, because progressive liberal politics are hated by the rich regardless of party.
I really think you all need to stop this nonsense. Look, I like a lot of her platform. I don't believe she is intentionally trying to deceive people. But some of you sound like Trump supporters.
She should be held to the same standard when it comes to truthfulness. I guess that's a little easier for me to do since I'm not beholden to either party.
The fact it's being pointed out when she doesn't tell the truth is the exact same thing that's done to Trump. It should be done to all elected officials. The American people have the right to know when someone in a position of authority is being dishonest to them.
It's not a conspiracy theory or some plot against her. It's about accountability. She is going to have to learn that if you wish to be viewed as different than other politicians, when you make a statement that's wrong, you have to stand up and own it.
lol that is what I have been trying to convey this entire thread. I simply cannot understand how people who incessantly rag on Trump for his lies and buffoonery defend someone doing the same type of half truth, half ignorant grandstanding.
Bro I don't want any of them lying. But AOC is taking hits for crap the right is just twisting. And I don't agree 100% with any politician, but when the other side attacks one of ours we have to at least take a look and hold that scrutiny to the same standard they would allow on one of theirs.
but its very odd how posters want people to compare a house member to the president.
the way pit and bpg talk, one would think AOC is currently president.
or even speaker. neither of which she is. thats like saying i should be upset with the governor of california with the same level of disappointment i have in the president.
i have no control over who elects the governor of cali, just like i have no control over who in the DISTRICT voted for AOC.
I think all elected officials should be held to the same standard. It doesn't really upset me. But if AOC plans to have any aspirations of furthering her political career in the future, she needs to watch what she says now.
She can choose to set herself apart from other politicians by owning up to her mistakes or be just another politician. I don't make excuses for the nations elected officials. To me it's not a "Yeah but she's not the president" kind of thing. Either elected officials are expected to be honest or they're not.
There was a time I felt that way. But there are 3 things I can't stand and it's liars, thieves, and dumbasses. In 2016 all three won. Crap changed.
And that's fine that you feel that way. Yet that seems to be the exact kind of thing that Republicans use with Democrats.
They say Dems are all some extreme left wing politicians and count them all as being the same. I don't like falling into that category as labeling people as all the same.
We had a fantastic gov. here in Bill Haslam. I don't feel anyone can honestly compare a man like Kasich to Trump. I'm not a one size fits all kind of guy.
The media is attempting an establishment hit on AOC imho. Just like they do to Bernie, because progressive liberal politics are hated by the rich regardless of party.
I really think you all need to stop this nonsense. Look, I like a lot of her platform. I don't believe she is intentionally trying to deceive people. But some of you sound like Trump supporters.
She should be held to the same standard when it comes to truthfulness. I guess that's a little easier for me to do since I'm not beholden to either party.
The fact it's being pointed out when she doesn't tell the truth is the exact same thing that's done to Trump. It should be done to all elected officials. The American people have the right to know when someone in a position of authority is being dishonest to them.
It's not a conspiracy theory or some plot against her. It's about accountability. She is going to have to learn that if you wish to be viewed as different than other politicians, when you make a statement that's wrong, you have to stand up and own it.
but its very odd how posters want people to compare a house member to the president.
the way pit and bpg talk, one would think AOC is currently president.
or even speaker. neither of which she is. thats like saying i should be upset with the governor of california with the same level of disappointment i have in the president.
i have no control over who elects the governor of cali, just like i have no control over who in the DISTRICT voted for AOC.
You bring up a good point, and I see that argument, however AOC is not part of a congress that passes bills for the entire country. She is now a congresswomen of the UNITED STATES from the state of new York, not the other way around.
Now, she should be acting in the interest of her consituents yes, but her ideas are being shut down by the rest (well, majority) of others, then well...that's how this whole thing works.
I don't care either way if she takes it, I am more disturbed that someone 29 years old with no experience can make 174k a year at ANY position.
Why are you disturbed by that?
I am disturbed by that to an extent. I don't think anyone that works part time should make that much money from a tax payer funded salary. Those are outrageous amounts to make IMHO.
edit to add: that goes for a 29 year old or a 70 year old, btw.
I don't care either way if she takes it, I am more disturbed that someone 29 years old with no experience can make 174k a year at ANY position.
Why are you disturbed by that?
The average american makes what 30k?
Quote:
For 25- to 34-year-olds, it was $793 a week, or $41,236 a year. The average salary for a recent college graduate with a bachelor's degree was $51,022 a year in 2017, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers Fall 2017 Salary Survey.Jun 20, 2018
I am disturbed by that to an extent. I don't think anyone that works part time should make that much money from a tax payer funded salary. Those are outrageous amounts to make IMHO.
edit to add: that goes for a 29 year old or a 70 year old, btw.
Is your specific concern that it's taxpayer funded, or that it's part time? I'm curious if you'd be ok with a private citizen making 174k working part time, or if they were full time you'd be ok with someone making 174k on taxpayer money.
I am disturbed by that to an extent. I don't think anyone that works part time should make that much money from a tax payer funded salary. Those are outrageous amounts to make IMHO.
edit to add: that goes for a 29 year old or a 70 year old, btw.
Is your specific concern that it's taxpayer funded, or that it's part time? I'm curious if you'd be ok with a private citizen making 174k working part time, or if they were full time you'd be ok with someone making 174k on taxpayer money.
Actually neither, it's more that someone with zero experience can land a job in the US government paying her that much. I realize that my perspective is skewed being in Ohio but still.
As a private citizen, make your money how you can get it, but no one is paying you 174k at 29 years old with no experience. Unless I am missing some niche market.
For 25- to 34-year-olds, it was $793 a week, or $41,236 a year. The average salary for a recent college graduate with a bachelor's degree was $51,022 a year in 2017, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers Fall 2017 Salary Survey.Jun 20, 2018
In my personal case no, but it's not uncommon for college grads in my field to make about what AOC is making in total comp. A college graduate moving into an L4 at Google can easily shoot past $200k in total comp.
Well yeah my adjusted salary is more than that in California. Still my point is that this person has no experience making 100k more than the median where she lives. In what can only be described as an entry level position.
Well yeah my adjusted salary is more than that in California. Still my point is that this person has no experience making 100k more than the median where she lives. In what can only be described as an entry level position.
I know we want a political pipeline, and to further deteriorate the executive and legislative branch, but being a congressperson, even a first timer, should hardly be considered an entry level position.
I don't have a problem with it but only for one reason. She was elected to hold the office. Now had she been given the job as some kind of favor or a complete oversight I would certainly agree with you. But when the voters in her district make a conscious choice to give her the job, that's the way the system is supposed to work.
AOC went for it and won, now she is making bank at only 29 AND involved in making laws with her radical ideas! Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck in loserville...
In my personal case no, but it's not uncommon for college grads in my field to make about what AOC is making in total comp. A college graduate moving into an L4 at Google can easily shoot past $200k in total comp.
I should have worked for google....
I don't have a problem with her salary... she got elected... that's what they make... I have a problem with her policies (which I completely disagree with) and the fact that she is inaccurate frequently and sounds like an idiot.....
I have similar problems with trump... agree with more of his policies but dude sounds like an idiot frequently....
Well yeah my adjusted salary is more than that in California. Still my point is that this person has no experience making 100k more than the median where she lives. In what can only be described as an entry level position.
The L4 comp I mentioned across all job sites. If you're just talking California, an L4 at Google can hit $300k or higher fairly easily. But really this is all besides the point. Calling a seat in the US House an " entry level position " makes absolutely no sense.
I think the disconnect is that entry level != experience. You can have no experience and be above entry level. My companies CEO has known only one job: the one he is in. We generate millions/yr in revenue and have employees on 4 continents. He has no prior experience, as he formed this business straight out of grad school. Yet I wouldn't typically consider the CEO of a company to be an entry level position, inexperienced or otherwise.
I am disturbed by that to an extent. I don't think anyone that works part time should make that much money from a tax payer funded salary. Those are outrageous amounts to make IMHO.
edit to add: that goes for a 29 year old or a 70 year old, btw.
Is your specific concern that it's taxpayer funded, or that it's part time? I'm curious if you'd be ok with a private citizen making 174k working part time, or if they were full time you'd be ok with someone making 174k on taxpayer money.
Both. I don't think we should be using tax funds to pay people exoborant amount of salaries to work part time when they are supposed to be working for the betterment of the country.
Which make me wonder : Why does Washington have all this time off? Is it not an important job to work full time?
As far a PRIVATE citizen goes, that's a completely different topic.
I've generally considered total compensation to be a function of skill and rarity. It's why a software engineer makes six figures and a burger technician at five guys doesn't. I don't know how many people hold the title "Congressperson" in the US (speaking state here not just federal) but given that most states probably don't have more than a few hundred, you're still talking an incredibly rare position to hold.
To me part time / full time doesn't matter as everything gets extrapolated from hours worked in the end. Even if you're salary, the salary tables your boss/company uses will adjust for hours. Maybe this is why US congresspeople make 174k and the president makes 400k... Just speculating.
That's why I don't see the problem... As for taxpayer funds, I think as a taxpayer I want competent people in positions of power, for our benefit, and if we made being a congressperson a pro bono job or something very low, the only people who would do the job would be independently wealthy people or people who cannot find a job that pays more.
As for taxpayer funds, I think as a taxpayer I want competent people in positions of power, for our benefit, and if we made being a congressperson a pro bono job or something very low, the only people who would do the job would be independently wealthy people or people who cannot find a job that pays more.
I don't have a problem paying competent people their worth. when we have competent people in congress worth their pay, let me know.
As for taxpayer funds, I think as a taxpayer I want competent people in positions of power, for our benefit, and if we made being a congressperson a pro bono job or something very low, the only people who would do the job would be independently wealthy people or people who cannot find a job that pays more.
I don't have a problem paying competent people their worth. when we have competent people in congress worth their pay, let me know.
We don't. However some things to consider before I get into my main point.
1. Most of these jobs are "part time" because historically congressmen have participated a lot more in their state politics instead of national politics. Especially the further we move back in time and start to see a lot of resentment towards any grand federal government action. Like schools' summer breaks, congressional recesses are holdovers of the past.
2. While the jobs are "part time" senators and congresspeople are working 24/7 for their party to fund future campaigns and to fund their national committee. Each party is pulling about 800+ million dollars per election (Presidential and midterms). Congresspeople are always greasing palms and playing politics.
3. It's a cross country job. For most congresspersons (AOC excluded), Washington is very far from their district. Over 2 hours away. Could you imagine doing travel jobs for less than six figures? Especially when talking about a bureaucratic and powerful job like working in the legislative branch. It makes sense that most congresspeople seek long term living arrangements in DC or, if you're super rich, Northern Virginia. Neither areas are cheap. These people do need to be compensated, even if many are rich enough to not need it.
I'm not sure on where exactly I stand, but I would like to see congress members possibly be paid more. Of course most are slimy greaseballs, which makes me want to not do that, however maybe financially compensating them while stripping them of a lot of their economic freedoms, such as, being able to serve on company boards, stock trading based on privy information, and a much more transparent system to record their financial records.
174 is just pay. were not even talking about healthcare for life and other benefits. they are making millions of dollars.
FYI, i don't think them campaigning all the time and getting greased is a good argument for them working more hours. That less time they are working.
Yeah, healthcare for life is stupid considering how rich they get when they serve.
Yes, that would be the case in an uncorrupted DC, however lobbyists have been writing most of the bills for the past decade, if not longer, so getting slushed at dinner while some lobbyist feeds them talking points, is the closest thing congress members get to working that doesn't involve their portfolios. I personally wouldn't consider it working either, but the congress people, mainly the house members who are a bit more vulnerable, work for the party not for the US. The parties are ran like a Fortune 500 company, if you aren't repeating the company line and raising enough money, not only will the congress person face their opposition party in the fall, but also a primary challenger who will work for X party. The bureaucratic efficiency of the two parties are disgusting, but something to behold.
174 is just pay. were not even talking about healthcare for life and other benefits. they are making millions of dollars.
FYI, i don't think them campaigning all the time and getting greased is a good argument for them working more hours. That less time they are working.
Yeah, healthcare for life is stupid considering how rich they get when they serve.
Yes, that would be the case in an uncorrupted DC, however lobbyists have been writing most of the bills for the past decade, if not longer, so getting slushed at dinner while some lobbyist feeds them talking points, is the closest thing congress members get to working that doesn't involve their portfolios. I personally wouldn't consider it working either, but the congress people, mainly the house members who are a bit more vulnerable, work for the party not for the US. The parties are ran like a Fortune 500 company, if you aren't repeating the company line and raising enough money, not only will the congress person face their opposition party in the fall, but also a primary challenger who will work for X party. The bureaucratic efficiency of the two parties are disgusting, but something to behold.
Most members aren’t getting anywhere close to being eligible for that. Like honestly I expected much better than nonsense from you two.
the article you posted says nothing about healthcare, but pay. Which no one said they get pay for life - if you are going to try rebuke what was said about healthcare they receive, at least post an article that relates to healthcare, not pay.
You know why I didn’t post anything like that? Cause very few people are gullible enough to think they get free healthcare for life after a couple of terms. All the articles relate to how much benefits they get WHILE they are active in congress. So I posted he most relevant article I could, which basically means once they hit the required years (very very few do) they get pay AND benefits.
Also, most members actually have to pay a premium every month for healthcare just like everyone else. Another subject that I would expect you and CHS to already be well aware of.
But I guess I have to adjust my thinking on what you and CHS actually know. So disappointed.
There is a way that s# gets did. Banging out 'quick thoughts' on Twitter is not statesmanship. It's not how serious policy should be discussed/considered.
I don't like it when Individual 1 does it; I don't like it when anyone else employs it.
Bad policy/procedure is bad policy/procedure. Doesn't matter which 'side' uses it.
There is a way that s# gets did. Banging out 'quick thoughts' on Twitter is not statesmanship. It's not how serious policy should be discussed/considered.
I don't like it when Individual 1 does it; I don't like it when anyone else employs it.
Bad policy/procedure is bad policy/procedure. Doesn't matter which 'side' uses it.
Whether you like it or not, it’s the future. Most people in the 18-35 demo don’t watch cable or local news. And for good reason - local news has become a hive of Sinclair broadcasting, and cable news - seeing their imminent extinction- have turned towards a lurid reality TV model to stay afloat.
If you’re, say, a junior senator or freshman congressperson, and you hold a speech on any particular issue on the same day that a big truck pulls up at the White House so Trump can be distracted and play with the truck’s horn, which event do you think CNN is going to give airtime to?
One could argue that Trump changed the game, or merely jumped in early on the inevitable, but it is inevitable. Social media is going to be the future of how politicians get out messaging. I’m not saying it’s better or wose, but it is the future.
There is a way that s# gets did. Banging out 'quick thoughts' on Twitter is not statesmanship. It's not how serious policy should be discussed/considered.
I don't like it when Individual 1 does it; I don't like it when anyone else employs it.
Bad policy/procedure is bad policy/procedure. Doesn't matter which 'side' uses it.
I appreciate your consistency. "Clap back" twitter is for celebrities not serious politicians. That includes Trump, both should be condemned, but if you look at the comments on her posts, there is large backing of support from the left thirsty for clap back twitter. Maybe that is in direct response to Trump, either way it is a concerning trend.
Not at all surprising for me. The concept of earning more than $500k/yr (the top marginal rate) is like winning the lottery for the vast, vast majority of Americans.
And being able to make up 3rd grade names for everyone who questions him is a better skill set? Or is it the constant lying that impresses you so much?
I mean it's fine to point out someone else is a piece of crap as long as you're willing to own your own piece of crap.
And being able to make up 3rd grade names for everyone who questions him is a better skill set? Or is it the constant lying that impresses you so much?
I mean it's fine to point out someone else is a piece of crap as long as you're willing to own your own piece of crap.
When have I ever said that trump was intelligent or smart? I may agree with some of his policies, some I don't. I don't recall ever saying that I thought he was an intellect. Please point that out to me where I have.
I will say, I don't think hes that smart. But even a failed business man has more experience than a bartender. Heck, hue Jackson got a job after the browns, he even has more experience than AOC.
I don't really disagree with you on her lack of experience. What I will say is that I think far more voters can relate to someone who has to fight to make a living than a billionaire who acts like some kind of bully.
I think she's the opposite of Trump which is what attracted voters to her. I think voters are searching for someone who can truly understand and relate to their struggles.
I don't really disagree with you on her lack of experience. What I will say is that I think far more voters can relate to someone who has to fight to make a living than a billionaire who acts like some kind of bully.
Havent you and others been complaining that we need qualified candidates tho? Relating to people is secondary in my book. I don't care if she can make a mudslide, I want someone that's going to be able to actually pass legislation.
Quote:
I think she's the opposite of Trump which is what attracted voters to her. I think voters are searching for someone who can truly understand and relate to their struggles.
I agree with this. Doesn't mena I still cant poke fun.
I think its funny that people on here blast trump and his voters all day every day for voting for him, yet support her. and vice versa. Its hilarious to me.
Hey, in case you haven't been reading the thread, I certainly don't support her. I think if the Dems keep pushing fringe candidates they'll lose the independent vote. That's no way to win a national election.
What I was saying is simple. Most politicians are rich and come from wealth. I can understand how people would vote for someone that can directly relate to their struggles. That in no way means that I support a certain candidate. That means I can understand why voters would find her a good candidate.
Of course they do....somebody has to keep paying for the freeloaders.
OCD...are you a freeloader?
By your standards I probably am, my wife gets a Vet Disability check. Other than that which she is entitled to not one damn penny from any other source than honest work. But you point is I'm liberal so I must be a taker... Of course you are wrong but you will never see that because you are the real taker.
I don't really disagree with you on her lack of experience. What I will say is that I think far more voters can relate to someone who has to fight to make a living than a billionaire who acts like some kind of bully.
Havent you and others been complaining that we need qualified candidates tho? Relating to people is secondary in my book. I don't care if she can make a mudslide, I want someone that's going to be able to actually pass legislation.
Quote:
I think she's the opposite of Trump which is what attracted voters to her. I think voters are searching for someone who can truly understand and relate to their struggles.
I agree with this. Doesn't mena I still cant poke fun.
Poking fun at women and minorities is what you all do best.
I don't really disagree with you on her lack of experience. What I will say is that I think far more voters can relate to someone who has to fight to make a living than a billionaire who acts like some kind of bully.
Havent you and others been complaining that we need qualified candidates tho? Relating to people is secondary in my book. I don't care if she can make a mudslide, I want someone that's going to be able to actually pass legislation.
Quote:
I think she's the opposite of Trump which is what attracted voters to her. I think voters are searching for someone who can truly understand and relate to their struggles.
I agree with this. Doesn't mena I still cant poke fun.
Poking fun at women and minorities is what you all do best.
That's right, because she is a women an minority she is not allowed to be criticized......bro I haven't replied to you in months because everything you say is either a joke or just flat out race baiting....
fact is, you are the one always pushing racism on this board. look in the mirror. I am done with you until you stop being a bigot racist.
I don't really disagree with you on her lack of experience. What I will say is that I think far more voters can relate to someone who has to fight to make a living than a billionaire who acts like some kind of bully.
Havent you and others been complaining that we need qualified candidates tho? Relating to people is secondary in my book. I don't care if she can make a mudslide, I want someone that's going to be able to actually pass legislation.
Quote:
I think she's the opposite of Trump which is what attracted voters to her. I think voters are searching for someone who can truly understand and relate to their struggles.
I agree with this. Doesn't mena I still cant poke fun.
Poking fun at women and minorities is what you all do best.
That's right, because she is a women an minority she is not allowed to be criticized......bro I haven't replied to you in months because everything you say is either a joke or just flat out race baiting....
fact is, you are the one always pushing racism on this board. look in the mirror. I am done with you until you stop being a bigot racist.
Dude you literally admitted to poking fun at her, a minority and a women. Not criticizing her.
I love how some get all uppity when others mention women and minorities. Then turn it around as “race baiting”. Whatever that is? I’ll say this though I have noticed some people get really upset when they are constantly being told they are a “racist bigot”. And when I hear that I say to myself “gee I wonder why they are constantly being told they are a “racist bigot”
Once again, the entire topic was on her stupidity. Nothing about her gender or race was brought up until your bigoted comments.
Its hilarious that an entire thread about how she says some pretty dumb things is discussed, yet you are the only one that brings race and gender. . . . .do you use a rod with your race bait?
psshh, be gone troll. You are exiled.
I truly feel bad for you that you hate white people so much. Its sad, pathetic, and downright makes you a small person.
Ocasio-Cortez invokes Bible in response to White House on climate change
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) on Wednesday responded to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling her to leave climate change up to a “much higher authority” by invoking the Bible.
The lawmaker appeared to be paraphrasing a Relevant magazine article from last year titled, "Stopping Climate Change Is a Part of Following Jesus." The article included adapted translations of specific biblical passages.
Ocasio-Cortez has frequently used her Twitter account to spar with critics and promote her progressive messaging.
Her latest tweets came after Sanders pushed back on her comments that “the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Sanders responded to the claim Tuesday night on Fox News.
“I don’t think that we are going to listen to her on much of anything, particularly anything that we will leave into the hands of a much, much higher authority,” Sanders told host Sean Hannity. “And certainly not listen to the freshman congresswoman on when the world may end.”
Ben Stein: Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising 'The Same Kinds Of Things' As Hitler
“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.” - Ben Stein
“Making money is one of the most of harmless things there is to do in the whole world,” he said. “And that’s what our society is about.” - Bein Stein
“It’s not about ordering people around, putting them concentration camps. What do you do if a person is a richer or poorer person? What do you do? Do you take him away? Do you shoot him? Well that’s what the communists tried, it didn’t work out very well for them.” - Ben Stien
Sad thing is, he is absolutely right, but the majority of Americans are just simply too stupid to listen. They are not really taught REAL history and are instead given a watered down incorrect softball version of history.
According to Cortez, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, guys like Mao Tse-Tung are heros to the Socialist cause, they are the kinda guys their ideals and policies follow....of course history taught in schools and universities today leaves out the Mao Tse-Tung butchered vast numbers of people...probably millions.
Tung, just like his socialist buddies Stalin, and Hitler, got too much money? Guess we will just take you out and shoot you...thats what it ALWAYS comes down to with Socialism one way or the other.
The fact that moron Cortez even got elected is an affront to America and Freedom...she wants to put every single person into bondage via absurdly high tax rates, reducing you to the status of a feudal serf, i'd argue even a Feudal Serf would have it better then what Cortez would plan for America if she had it her way...Hell even the Catholic Church only wanted 10%, Cortez wants 70% LOL!!!!!!
Her ideas and plans will do nothing but make more Americans jobless, more Americans poor, and reduce to slavery at the hands of an over reaching government via absurd tax rates...and if you can't pay? Well the Socialists will do what they always do, if you cna't pay, they kill ya
Even in 3rd world Socialist countries today, they draw and quarter people for owing what amounts to something like 26 us dollars in taxes...its comical how many people in this country are just flat out stupid...the lies Cortez is saying are the same lies every despot from Napoleon to Milošević told their people before they took control and slaughtered them, and threatened slaughter to what was left if they didn't pay...thats not a country I want any part of.
Donald Trump is a lot of things, a goof, a moron, a putz, perhaps a criminal...however he isn;t a socialist and most certainly doesn't want to destroy capitalism, which its fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, and socialism has created more poor people than any other system...but yup...keep listening to Cortez...it won't end well...
Ben Stein: Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising 'The Same Kinds Of Things' As Hitler
“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.” - Ben Stein
“Making money is one of the most of harmless things there is to do in the whole world,” he said. “And that’s what our society is about.” - Bein Stein
“It’s not about ordering people around, putting them concentration camps. What do you do if a person is a richer or poorer person? What do you do? Do you take him away? Do you shoot him? Well that’s what the communists tried, it didn’t work out very well for them.” - Ben Stien
Sad thing is, he is absolutely right, but the majority of Americans are just simply too stupid to listen. They are not really taught REAL history and are instead given a watered down incorrect softball version of history.
According to Cortez, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, guys like Mao Tse-Tung are heros to the Socialist cause, they are the kinda guys their ideals and policies follow....of course history taught in schools and universities today leaves out the Mao Tse-Tung butchered vast numbers of people...probably millions.
Tung, just like his socialist buddies Stalin, and Hitler, got too much money? Guess we will just take you out and shoot you...thats what it ALWAYS comes down to with Socialism one way or the other.
The fact that moron Cortez even got elected is an affront to America and Freedom...she wants to put every single person into bondage via absurdly high tax rates, reducing you to the status of a feudal serf, i'd argue even a Feudal Serf would have it better then what Cortez would plan for America if she had it her way...Hell even the Catholic Church only wanted 10%, Cortez wants 70% LOL!!!!!!
Her ideas and plans will do nothing but make more Americans jobless, more Americans poor, and reduce to slavery at the hands of an over reaching government via absurd tax rates...and if you can't pay? Well the Socialists will do what they always do, if you cna't pay, they kill ya
Even in 3rd world Socialist countries today, they draw and quarter people for owing what amounts to something like 26 us dollars in taxes...its comical how many people in this country are just flat out stupid...the lies Cortez is saying are the same lies every despot from Napoleon to Milošević told their people before they took control and slaughtered them, and threatened slaughter to what was left if they didn't pay...thats not a country I want any part of.
Donald Trump is a lot of things, a goof, a moron, a putz, perhaps a criminal...however he isn;t a socialist and most certainly doesn't want to destroy capitalism, which its fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, and socialism has created more poor people than any other system...but yup...keep listening to Cortez...it won't end well...
Ben Stein: Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising 'The Same Kinds Of Things' As Hitler
“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.” - Ben Stein
“Making money is one of the most of harmless things there is to do in the whole world,” he said. “And that’s what our society is about.” - Bein Stein
“It’s not about ordering people around, putting them concentration camps. What do you do if a person is a richer or poorer person? What do you do? Do you take him away? Do you shoot him? Well that’s what the communists tried, it didn’t work out very well for them.” - Ben Stien
Sad thing is, he is absolutely right, but the majority of Americans are just simply too stupid to listen. They are not really taught REAL history and are instead given a watered down incorrect softball version of history.
According to Cortez, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, guys like Mao Tse-Tung are heros to the Socialist cause, they are the kinda guys their ideals and policies follow....of course history taught in schools and universities today leaves out the Mao Tse-Tung butchered vast numbers of people...probably millions.
Tung, just like his socialist buddies Stalin, and Hitler, got too much money? Guess we will just take you out and shoot you...thats what it ALWAYS comes down to with Socialism one way or the other.
The fact that moron Cortez even got elected is an affront to America and Freedom...she wants to put every single person into bondage via absurdly high tax rates, reducing you to the status of a feudal serf, i'd argue even a Feudal Serf would have it better then what Cortez would plan for America if she had it her way...Hell even the Catholic Church only wanted 10%, Cortez wants 70% LOL!!!!!!
Her ideas and plans will do nothing but make more Americans jobless, more Americans poor, and reduce to slavery at the hands of an over reaching government via absurd tax rates...and if you can't pay? Well the Socialists will do what they always do, if you cna't pay, they kill ya
Even in 3rd world Socialist countries today, they draw and quarter people for owing what amounts to something like 26 us dollars in taxes...its comical how many people in this country are just flat out stupid...the lies Cortez is saying are the same lies every despot from Napoleon to Milošević told their people before they took control and slaughtered them, and threatened slaughter to what was left if they didn't pay...thats not a country I want any part of.
Donald Trump is a lot of things, a goof, a moron, a putz, perhaps a criminal...however he isn;t a socialist and most certainly doesn't want to destroy capitalism, which its fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, and socialism has created more poor people than any other system...but yup...keep listening to Cortez...it won't end well...
You sound foolish. Completely foolish.
But haven’t you heard about the gun toting thugs dragging Scandinavian families from their homes and killing them in the streets?!
Ocasio-Cortez invokes Bible in response to White House on climate change
I don't agree with a lot that AOC says, but in this I will agree with her. I've been saying for a long time that it boggles my mind why, since the Bible talks about caring for God's creation, the Christians on the right aren't championing care for the planet.
I'm pretty sure it comes down to 1 of 2 things...
1. Either they have weighed the issues of personal freedoms with mandated environmental issues and decided that personal freedoms are more important... (but I think that might be giving a lot of people too much credit for assuming they have thought that deeply into it)..
or
2. The libs are for it, therefore, we must be against it. Which is a very common, albeit, idiotic conclusion that both sides reach on many issues.
Ocasio-Cortez invokes Bible in response to White House on climate change
I don't agree with a lot that AOC says, but in this I will agree with her. I've been saying for a long time that it boggles my mind why, since the Bible talks about caring for God's creation, the Christians on the right aren't championing care for the planet.
I'm pretty sure it comes down to 1 of 2 things...
1. Either they have weighed the issues of personal freedoms with mandated environmental issues and decided that personal freedoms are more important... (but I think that might be giving a lot of people too much credit for assuming they have thought that deeply into it)..
or
2. The libs are for it, therefore, we must be against it. Which is a very common, albeit, idiotic conclusion that both sides reach on many issues.
My evangelical father basically says “we’re not going to destroy the planet faster than God’s plan”. In his view, I guess,God is going to destroy the earth as we know it to create heaven. So it really doesn’t matter. It’s terrifying. It’s embarrassing.
I think there is a very valid concern that A. the world has always been cyclical, that colder and warmer ages have been a part of the earths history and B. That there is so much money to be made much like the war on drugs, useless wars that politicians have pushed and gotten filthy rich off of course they would want to push legislation. I think both of those are reasonable questions and concerns.
At the end of the day, there is nothing to lose by going green and yes, the Al Gore's of the world are going to acquire generational wealth pushing what could potentially be an exaggerated version (to what extent who knows) of the truth, but that is a pretty stupid reason to oppose it even if it turns out to be greatly exaggerated.
From the conversations I've had with those opposed, the prevailing thought is that it is greatly exaggerated and that humans, particularly individuals (not corporations) have very little to no effect on it.
The idea that one person or one family doesn't have a great impact makes sense. But when you consider how many people there actually are on this planet, it makes no sense at all to me.
What I see are that some people make excuses as to why we shouldn't do our best to protect our planet. Are we responsible for all of climate change? I really have no idea. Is weather cyclical? All signs point to that.
But I see it as a very shallow excuse not to do our best to take every measure we can to protect our planet. I don't see how Christians don't or won't understand that it would just be a respectful way to show God you appreciate all that he has blessed us with.
And let's not forget energy independence. People worry about gas and energy prices on a daily basis and then wish to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to keep the status quo of America depending on the rest of the world to keep the energy that drives America flowing at a reasonable cost.
Why Congress needs AOC, more waitresses, fewer millionaires
The congresswoman known as “AOC” — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — once again has found a way to trigger conservatives and, maybe even more so, establishment Democrats. This time, in answer to a question posed by journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, “Is it possible to live in a moral society with billionaires?,” Ocasio-Cortez replied: “No, it’s not. I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.”
These words are revolutionary. They cut to the core of the agreement that Democrats and Republicans have made with the American oligarchs who really run our country. The consensus both parties seem to have come to is that the goal of American society should be to form a more perfect meritocracy, that there is no higher goal than making sure that those who win the genetic lottery of skills currently prized by the market can ascend to their rightful slot and make their billions. It’s their right. Those who don’t happen to have that particular combination of currently marketable skills can rot in minimum wage jobs, catering to the whims of the deserving creative class.
Yes, both parties have adopted this exalting of the meritocracy. The only difference is that Republicans believe the meritocracy is more or less functioning, while Democrats believe that if we can just rid ourselves of the biases of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., we can achieve the perfection of the meritocracy.
Gone is the embrace of a life of dignity for all, such as what FDR proposed with his Four Freedoms. Gone is the solidarity of the labor movement’s seeking through unified struggle to secure a decent living for all workers. Gone is the call for economic justice by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who fought against the oppression of the poor as well as structural racism. We have traded a vision of humanity and dignity for all for a vision of the fundamental righteousness of plutocracy. Today’s billionaire kings have a divine right to their largesse because the meritocracy said so. They deserve their vast wealth, just as those stuck serving the overclass deserve their lives of struggle and hopelessness.
This is the real divide in the Democratic Party: those who believe every citizen deserves a decent life, regardless of their zip code or their math score on the SAT, and those who just want to give people the vaguely-worded “right to compete.” As if that competition could ever be fair-minded, and as if the losers of that competition deserve their fate. It’s no accident that the alternative view — that we are all worthy — would be elevated by a bartender from the Bronx. AOC doesn’t know struggle from reading an article about it; she has seen it, smelled it, felt pressure to pay her own rent. And not 30 years ago before she made it, but today.
Recently, over eggs at the Holiday Inn Express in Charleston, West Virginia, our waitress pulled up some pics on her phone. “This is my son, Theo,” she told us, his name emblazoned in a tattoo on her arm. “He just turned 3 and he really wanted a sandbox. I couldn’t afford that, though, so I just threw some sand out behind the trailer and he had a blast.” She proclaimed it with a big smile at adorable Theo romping in his birthday sand.
Just think: This woman works full time in America, the wealthiest nation on the planet, and she can’t afford a sandbox for her kid’s birthday. But a couple hours’ drive down the road and you’ll arrive at the mountaintop mansion of former coal baron and Senate candidate Don Blankenship, complete with helipad and private water line. Is this moral? No, it is not. Is it moral that Redskins owner Dan Snyder can buy a $100 million yacht while homeless people lie in the streets of Washington, D.C.? Is it moral when cities throw hundreds of millions of dollars at Jeff Bezos to get him to please locate Amazon in their city, while public school systems are starved of funds?
AOC is right. America’s economic system is immoral. And if we had more waitresses in Congress, and fewer millionaires, we might actually do something about it.
I'm not sure I'd want a waitress doing spinal surgery either.
It's about being connected to regular people. Did you see Wilbur Ross and the Trump's perspective on how people should feed themselves with no paychecks?
Obvious hyperbole but with Senator Warren also traveling this road, this is not going away. to an extent she is correct.
Running a business by a vote from people that have no understanding of how to run a business sounds like a terrible idea.
And yet running the government by electing a multiple bankrupted businessman who doesn’t know any aspect of government function is perfectly acceptable to you.
Either the standard is the standard, or you don’t have one to begin with.
Obvious hyperbole but with Senator Warren also traveling this road, this is not going away. to an extent she is correct.
Running a business by a vote from people that have no understanding of how to run a business sounds like a terrible idea.
And yet running the government by electing a multiple bankrupted businessman who doesn’t know any aspect of government function is perfectly acceptable to you.
Either the standard is the standard, or you don’t have one to begin with.
Where did I elect bankrupt businessmen or say that was acceptable?
I don’t make things up. You can look up your own search history, as I’m not your maid.
I’m well aware of our own two interactions throughout my time posting. The fact that you have to resort to playing stupid instead of arguing why you’re for or against what I said is sad enough.
But anyway, the overall issue is the hilarity that people seem to hold some junior rep to the same standard as the president, as I’ve previously stated before.
If you keep trashing AOC, but then refuse to say anything about trump, like squires repeatedly does, then it only shows your own hypocrisy.
But anyway, the overall issue is the hilarity that people seem to hold some junior rep to the same standard as the president, as I’ve previously stated before.
If you keep trashing AOC, but then refuse to say anything about trump, like squires repeatedly does, then it only shows your own hypocrisy.
For the life of me, I can’t understand the need to pretend “hey, this personable and relatable young woman is exactly like the sundowning rape ogre! Two sides of the same coin, really! I’m not afraid of her at all! I’m laughing at her, actually!”
But anyway, the overall issue is the hilarity that people seem to hold some junior rep to the same standard as the president, as I’ve previously stated before.
If you keep trashing AOC, but then refuse to say anything about trump, like squires repeatedly does, then it only shows your own hypocrisy.
For the life of me, I can’t understand the need to pretend “hey, this personable and relatable young woman is exactly like the sundowning rape ogre! Two sides of the same coin, really! I’m not afraid of her at all! I’m laughing at her, actually!”
People who compare AOC and Donald Trump are morons.
Them being popular, on Twitter, and responding directly to the press is not an apt comparison. These are broad interactions that anyone can do. It's like comparing the Browns to a peewee football team because they both play with 11 players at a time.
I put BpG on ignore because he's very hateful, but based on yours and Swish's post, I'm guessing he posted that negatively viewed piece by the failing National Review. Is that true?
I think deep down they’re embarrassed that they got taken by Trump, so to soften the blow, they’re looking to normalize him by comparing others to him.
She also gets inordinate attention from two specific groups- FOX News Grandpas and Jordan Peterson dorks, which speaks to an underlying horniness.
That's gross and she is ugly. If people can't tell she is a nut just by watching her speak then shame on them.
The real evil in this country are the corporations that destroy free enterprise by the monopolies or near monopolies they create by using their large pool of resources to operate at a loss to destroy local and smaller businesses to get rid of the competition. When companies gained the same rights as humans it was the beginning of the end.
Running a business by a vote from people that have no understanding of how to run a business sounds like a terrible idea.
I agree, yet understand what's going on.
You see, when people work full time jobs and can't do anything but squeak by with no chance to get ahead, business has began to think in only one direction. A balance must be achieved. Since it seems business has no desire to correct itself, it's understandable that the population feels it has no choice but to do it for them.
Things are cyclical. These same conditions existed when unions were formed in the 1930's. As time went on unions became too powerful and actually hurt business to a degree that was harmful to commerce. They got away from why they were brought about in the first place. They overstepped their power and what they were designed to accomplish by asking far too much and offering little in return.
Their power became greatly diminished as a result. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction once again. And as a result we'll see the same thing we did in the 30's when labor revolted and yet another correction will be made. It's an obvious consequence of giving either labor or business too much power in one direction.
Fighting it will only slow the process. This is not going away.
Example:
I worked for a corporate retailer for 5 years. If you wish to you can decipher which with some research. The capital investment firm slowly over the years siphoned money out of the company rendering it not viable as a business. They gave us from the day (ish) before Thanksgiving to find new jobs, declared bankruptcy and gave us ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH severance. We were all done by Christmas.
A year later, a class action suit was settled, I got like $1,300 after taxes, that is a DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared my salary and years served. After this was settled, the news comes out that they are being sued for illegally siphoning money out of the company. Leaving those of us that got screwed.....still screwed. Now the bankruptcy firm is even going after those who received payments within 90 days of the bankruptcy. So not only did they siphon money out, the bankruptcy courts are going after the companies that did work for us EVEN IF they were stiffed on the bankruptcy. One vendor of mine got stiffed on 50k and they are asking him to repay 127k.....this is a 6 person company.
Something has to give, this crap happens way too often. One of my hopes going into the last election would be that if ANYONE knew the corruption of business practices and how to correct it would be Trump. At the very least it was worth the shot. He won't ever get to that point, constantly fighting with Democrats over bullcrap.
Anyway I've digressed, at the end of the day something needs to be done. Corporations are running this country, not the people, the average person are just looking to not get screwed. So at the end of the rant, Im back to where I started....this notion....not going away.
We agree right up until the point you felt trump would be the person to fix it.
Knowing how to fix it? I'm not sure. But I think one has to realize that Trump doesn't come from, nor is experienced with corporate structure or how they operate. He ran a family owned and operated business of which he was in charge. What he said goes and as far as dealing with a corporate board or corporate structure, his experience is zero.
Trump has been involved in over 3,500 lawsuits. Many of which have been to fight paying his contractors.
I'm not sure what anyone saw in his past that would give them hope he could or would "fix it".
Running a business by a vote from people that have no understanding of how to run a business sounds like a terrible idea.
I agree, yet understand what's going on.
You see, when people work full time jobs and can't do anything but squeak by with no chance to get ahead, business has began to think in only one direction. A balance must be achieved. Since it seems business has no desire to correct itself, it's understandable that the population feels it has no choice but to do it for them.
Things are cyclical. These same conditions existed when unions were formed in the 1930's. As time went on unions became too powerful and actually hurt business to a degree that was harmful to commerce. They got away from why they were brought about in the first place. They overstepped their power and what they were designed to accomplish by asking far too much and offering little in return.
Their power became greatly diminished as a result. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction once again. And as a result we'll see the same thing we did in the 30's when labor revolted and yet another correction will be made. It's an obvious consequence of giving either labor or business too much power in one direction.
Your take on unions maybe the soundest take you have on any subject you have spoken about.
I am pro union, but not the unions we have today. They are nothing more than lobbyist and fee collectors that stuff their pockets, and have forgotten what it is that they were formed to do.
We agree right up until the point you felt trump would be the person to fix it.
Knowing how to fix it? I'm not sure. But I think one has to realize that Trump doesn't come from, nor is experienced with corporate structure or how they operate. He ran a family owned and operated business of which he was in charge. What he said goes and as far as dealing with a corporate board or corporate structure, his experience is zero.
Trump has been involved in over 3,500 lawsuits. Many of which have been to fight paying his contractors.
I'm not sure what anyone saw in his past that would give them hope he could or would "fix it".
The lawsuits, the notion that it takes a criminal to find one. Like Ted Bundy and the FBI....
Again when you're splitting hairs on turd sandwiches you have to take everything into account. What I meant by "If anyone" I meant of the choices we were given.
Yet you refuse to explain how someone in charge of a family business, that actually has skin in the game to keep things slanted in his favor, has the ability or motivation to fix this.
Yet you refuse to explain how someone in charge of a family business, that actually has skin in the game to keep things slanted in his favor, has the ability or motivation to fix this.
Refuse? I think that is a poor choice of words. He said a number of times that he wanted to drain the swamp and end corruption. Not that I believed he would do it, but with absolute certainty I knew that Hilary would never.
I think in all honesty you knew neither would do it. He's just the right's version of Kamala Harris. He threw out a bunch of hyperbole without saying anything or laying out a plan to accomplish it. When a man has made that much money gaming the system he claims he plans to change, follow the money. The math was basic.
Yet you refuse to explain how someone in charge of a family business, that actually has skin in the game to keep things slanted in his favor, has the ability or motivation to fix this.
Refuse? I think that is a poor choice of words. He said a number of times that he wanted to drain the swamp and end corruption. Not that I believed he would do it, but with absolute certainty I knew that Hilary would never.
“When Pennywise the Clown told me he wouldn’t eat children, I took him at his word, and hoped he wouldn’t eat children”.
Honestly, I give you props for admitting it, because others don’t have the stones. But, Jesus, man...listen to yourself.
Undoubtedly the man didn't have any plans because he was too green, but that was part of the allure...an outsider....not the best outsider but an outsider none the less. Yes it was almost entirely Hyperbole but it wasn't the same old, worn out platitudes. I voted for him, but it wasn't like I was feeling great about it. I did follow the money, on both sides and there were two options....1. War overseas or 2. The corrupt businessman who said he wanted to change things.
There was on one hand a candidate where there was even the smallest hope that maybe he did love America and wanted to make the changes.
Undoubtedly the man didn't have any plans because he was too green, but that was part of the allure...an outsider....not the best outsider but an outsider none the less. Yes it was almost entirely Hyperbole but it wasn't the same old, worn out platitudes. I voted for him, but it wasn't like I was feeling great about it. I did follow the money, on both sides and there were two options....1. War overseas or 2. The corrupt businessman who said he wanted to change things.
There was on one hand a candidate where there was even the smallest hope that maybe he did love America and wanted to make the changes.
And in the other hand, none of that.
Really wordy way to say “I voted for the racist rape ogre”.
Just say “option B was Hillary”. You’ll embarrass yourself less.
Now I'm getting confused in your message here. In an earlier post you stated this....
Quote:
One of my hopes going into the last election would be that if ANYONE knew the corruption of business practices and how to correct it would be Trump.
Then in your last post you stated this.....
Quote:
Undoubtedly the man didn't have any plans because he was too green
So I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. You seemed to indicate that he had business experience that would help him to understand the system and how to fix it. Later you said he had no plan to do this because he was too green. Hopefully you can understand why this seems like a contradiction.
I'm also confused on why anyone thought that he loved America when he had spent years before he was even elected trying to divide it with lies.
He spent years trying to undermine the Obama presidency by saying he was a Muslim born in Kenya. He made outrageous claims that he saw thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey as the towers collapsed on 9/11.
The evidence was clear well before the election that this man was nothing more than hot air and lying was what he was known for. And dividing people against each other was his specialty.
There were two pieces of crap presented to the American people from each major party. The entire "Our piece of crap was better than your piece of crap" holds zero merit and IMO is nothing more than an excuse for a tremendous mistake made by people who supported either one of these fools.
When referencing too green I am talking about the political aspect of changing policy and understanding how it works from the inside. I don't see how that could be construed as a contradiction.
When referencing too green I am talking about the political aspect of changing policy and understanding how it works from the inside. I don't see how that could be construed as a contradiction.
“When I said ‘too green’, I didn’t mean that I actually thought a senile game show host was a viable option. Please stop making fun of me for that”.
You see, when people work full time jobs and can't do anything but squeak by with no chance to get ahead, business has began to think in only one direction. A balance must be achieved. Since it seems business has no desire to correct itself, it's understandable that the population feels it has no choice but to do it for them.
If the population can force them to change, great. The job market is supply and demand, if people refuse to work for crappy companies, they'll have to pay more to attract workers. I know, easier said than done. Easier when a union is backing you. Even then, some companies just don't care. The amount of money Verizon spends to fight the union every 3 years baffles me.
I agree unions had a place, but they lost their way. If they make a comeback, they need to protect the productive workers, not the deadbeats. My sister is a store manager and the union won't let her fire someone who is constantly no call/no show for work. Stop protecting those folks and reward those that put in the effort. Unions have a place if they can do it right.
You made a point about unions that exemplifies exactly what I was talking about in regards to going too far.
But on another point we certainly disagree. At least according to statistics. As of now, unemployment is at its lowest level in 50 years. It had been trending that way for a very long time. At the very same time, minimum wage hasn't had a single increase on the federal level in a decade. If those unemployment rates aren't proof positive that supply and demand for workers doesn't drive wages, I'm not sure what can prove it to you.
It's easy to see that wages are being artificially kept down. While inflation as a whole has pretty much been kept in check, the things that people must have has gone through the roof. The main staples of life such as housing and food far outpace inflation rates.
While you're right that, "some companies just don't care", that's why people are beginning to advocate political candidates that are willing to enact policies that force companies not to pay starvation wages. I'm not happy that business isn't willing to police itself into paying better wages. But people are becoming sick of it. It's also why average wage workers look at things from the rich verses poor perspective. Business is causing these things, not the people.
Those who cry foul and socialism every time something like that happens, I think they need to actually look at the source of the problem rather than cry foul at those looking for the solution.
If a company has full time employees on government assistance, of any kind (short of disabilities and such), they should be taxed at a higher rate. Period. No company should be getting tax breaks, while earning record profits, while requiring their employees to be tax payer subsidized.
The minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade while food and housing costs have soared. We both know that minimum wage has a direct impact on wages above it. Corporations have openly spent millions upon millions to fight unions from entering the work place. Wages have been basically flat for the middle class while unemployment is at a 50 year low and were trending in that direction for a long time.
The common theory has been supply and demand controls wages. Yet unemployment is at a 50 year low and those wages are not trending upwards. So obviously it's not a supply and demand issue which has been the story predicated upon us.
We live in a nation that permits corporations to pay wages so low that the taxpayer has to subsidize their workers with food stamps and medical insurance. All paid for by people like yourself. Surely you can see how subsidizing corporations employees through taxpayer dollars while they make billions in profits is a problem.
Pelosi throws shade as Green New Deal unveiled: ‘Green dream or whatever they call it’
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is set to release her much-touted “Green New Deal” on Thursday -- a package of far-reaching, big-government proposals like health care for all, federal job guarantees and a push to eliminate U.S. carbon emissions -- but it’s already receiving shade from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico on Wednesday. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”
The ding by Pelosi comes just as Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., are teasing the ambitious deal and set to unveil it at a Thursday afternoon press conference. The measure is currently in a form of a non-binding resolution -- meaning even if it passes it won’t do anything. But it formally outlines the proposal in Congress for the first time and would mark a start on the path toward what Ocasio-Cortez has called “a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy.” Cost estimates for the sprawling proposal range into the trillions.
It is a shame how some Democrats don't walk lock step in line with each other on every issue. One may think they actually think for themselves rather than follow some orange God around rubber stamping everything he says.
Where she is wrong: The Green deal or some variation of it is going to happen. They can fight it for their special interest all they want, the youth of this generation want this so it is WHEN and NOT IF.
Where she is right: AOC embraces this “pop off, hand clap, clap back” nonsense. Almost always I’ll conceived and not well thought out. When you act like a child they are going to treat you like one. Sure your twitter mentions are full of “LOOOVE YOU GUURRL” but no one give a crap about your twitter cred when proposing a new deal, it actually hurts your credibility as a serious law maker.
So...If you were a dem congress person you would be in lock step with the minute be for birth or even after birth of euthanizing a living breathing human being that the sick people in your party are for all because you hate Trump. You do realize that's murder and you be for it. right.
I have no idea where something like your comment even came from.
My point was that Democrats often don't walk lock step in line with each other. It's a novel idea for some and doesn't always bode well for winning elections.
Take the Bernie verses Hillary factions. One in ten Bernie supporters voted for Trump. Enough to have changed the outcome of the election.
I'm not going to follow you down the tangent road.
My point was that Democrats often don't walk lock step in line with each other.
WHA???
Delay, Obstruct, And Resist has been their cry for two years now while their propaganda wing (Media) have also reported everything in lockstep, using the very same words on each story!
On the same page OMG ! 
