Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Brew 3,044]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I am a HUGE advocate of community college.

It’s a good start for a number of people that aren’t ready for college, don’t know what they want to do, or just don’t want to leave home or attend a 4 year. Tech school should be more widely used by those that aren’t going to a 4 year, especially here when it is free. Electrical, HVAC, other specialties all have solid livings tied to them but you are going to start out low on the totem pole and have to bust your ass to get to where the money is. 

Would there be a down side to putting a work requirement on loan recipients with the colleges required to staff a number of positions? I worked in the campus grocery store my first year on campus to be able to eat and then worked full time from then on off campus. I was also one of the “dumb” ones that got married early in college and had two of us to support.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Brew

[Aqua Buddha 14,488]

 

[retread 2,951]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

She is left wing lady Trump.  Granted, she’s not old and overtly hateful in that old person DGAF way like Trump is, which is worth something.  But she is:

It is depressing to think we are going to just swing back and forth from loud mouth idiots on one side of the aisle to the other, ad nauseum.  I really hope some moderate normal candidate beats Trump in 2020 and people decide twitter smack from politicians is so last decade.

I wonder if a level-headed, normal D could win vs DOTUS, if he survives politically until 2020.

It would be the same childish games during debates -- e.g. I know you are but what am I? The constant barrages that the orange toddler would send out on Twitter. His supporters would of course eat it up. Would the other voters be able to ignore the probably profane and idiotic attacks on the D candidate? I'm not sure.

[jimmyjazz 45,512]

47 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

She is left wing lady Trump.  Granted, she’s not old and overtly hateful in that old person DGAF way like Trump is, which is worth something.  But she is:

1. A complete lightweight who uses media attention and simplistic, fantastical populist nonsense applause lines as substitutes for realistic substantive ideas and policy positions. 

2. Often wholly ignorant of the actual facts, but never lets that stand in the way of delivering a red meat line to elicit an emotional response from her supporters. 

3. Willfully deceptive, but her supporters always find a reason to excuse the ignorance and the falsehoods.  She’s young and unpolished!  She’s still learning! (Trump is a businessman not a politician! He’s still learning!)

4. Funnier / hipper than most politicians, which results in her delivering nice put downs and twitter troll smack.  This is, apparently, the key to political success now in both parties.  Yay America!

5. Benefiting from an emerging cult of personality among people who want to believe in her ridiculous promises of making everything great (and how easily and cheaply it can be done!), and among people who just enjoy owning the pubs and tasting right wing tears.  And the lengths the supporters will go to in order to hold her up as a champion ... I was always amazed at the conspiracy theories people would concoct to justify support of Trump, and now apparently we get to see the mirror image of how ACO is going to drain that Harvard Skull & Bones swamp.  Oh, and the whataboutisms!  But Hillary!  But Louis Gohmert!

It is depressing to think we are going to just swing back and forth from loud mouth idiots on one side of the aisle to the other, ad nauseum.  I really hope some moderate normal candidate beats Trump in 2020 and people decide twitter smack from politicians is so last decade.

 

So what do you really think?

I don't think she's the savior.  I don't think anyone her age is the savior.  I am quite excited that people like her are actually getting elected.  Your impractical criticism does (and should) fall on deaf ears -- we need dozens more AOC not fewer, because good intentions coupled with youthful naivete beat the living shit out of bad intentions coupled with a detailed knowledge of how shit works.

Yeesh.   Seriously, I fucking worry about people who post shit like you just did.  That's just flat out ridiculous.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,232]

She is left wing lady Trump.  Granted, she’s not old and overtly hateful in that old person DGAF way like Trump is, which is worth something.  But she is: 1. A complete lightweight who uses media attention and simplistic, fantastical populist nonsense applause lines as substitutes for realistic substantive ideas and policy positions. 

2. Often wholly ignorant of the actual facts, but never lets that stand in the way of delivering a red meat line to elicit an emotional response from her supporters. 

3. Willfully deceptive, but her supporters always find a reason to excuse the ignorance and the falsehoods.  She’s young and unpolished!  She’s still learning! (Trump is a businessman not a politician! He’s still learning!)

4. Funnier / hipper than most politicians, which results in her delivering nice put downs and twitter troll smack.  This is, apparently, the key to political success now in both parties.  Yay America!

5. Benefiting from an emerging cult of personality among people who want to believe in her ridiculous promises of making everything great (and how easily and cheaply it can be done!), and among people who just enjoy owning the pubs and tasting right wing tears.  And the lengths the supporters will go to in order to hold her up as a champion ... I was always amazed at the conspiracy theories people would concoct to justify support of Trump, and now apparently we get to see the mirror image of how ACO is going to drain that Harvard Skull & Bones swamp.  Oh, and the whataboutisms!  But Hillary!  But Louis Gohmert!

It is depressing to think we are going to just swing back and forth from loud mouth idiots on one side of the aisle to the other, ad nauseum.  I really hope some moderate normal candidate beats Trump in 2020 and people decide twitter smack from politicians is so last decade.

 

 

Nah. Don’t both sides this. She’s a very progressive-left first term member of Congress in her 20s benefitting from the notoriety of beating an institutional leader and becoming a target of the Republican Bullshit Machine that you used to buy into until it gave you Donald Trump. That’s all.

 

At most, she’s a lefty Matt Gaetz. Maybe she will be important and productive beyond her media profile someday, but she isn’t yet.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It is in our best interest - for ALL of us, including the wealthy, for folks who work a regular job to be able to survive a $1000 car repair, or not go broke because they got sick. They don’t need steak and caviar, but every person working a decent job should be able to breathe easy with some measure of security.

If enough of them can’t, then that’s when the pitchforks come out. History is full of that lesson. We should heed it.

It’s also in the best interest of a lot of the middle and upper-class folks that these people not only be able to survive a car repair or illness, but remain solvent so as to contribute taxes such as property taxes (through rent, etc.) or sales tax, which also helps keep local businesses solvent. 

Yeah, there are plenty who are wealthy enough to escape to somewhere if shit starts going downhill, but a helluva lot more in the middle and upper-classes need those lower classes.   And the middle and upper-classes can either prop up those lower classes through things like insurance (we end up paying when those who can’t afford decent medical care use the emergency room for things like the flu), or a rise in other costs (perhaps wages have to increase), or we can do things to help from the beginning - better public education, health care, etc. 

We are going to pay for those folks when they have problems (medical, etc.), it’s just a matter of when and how much.  If we can improve their lives earlier to where they don’t end up in emergency situations due to various costs, it’s  probably cheaper, and helps them climb the proverbial financial ladder to where they contribute back to society (and businesses) as well.

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

She is left wing lady Trump.  

Not.

Even.

Close.

[DixonHur 11,074]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It was certainly a confluence of factors. It certainly included a system of free enterprise. It also included a blank slate with incredible national resources. And our most prosperous period - 1945-1975 - was because we had the good fortune to have two oceans preventing us from having our commercial infrastructure bombed into oblivion like the rest of the developed world did. When you’re the only country with an intact manufacturing base, you’re going to rake in the dollars.

Of course, at that time, we had pretty high tax rates on the top tiers. We had strong unions. We had wages of the average worker that were 1/30th what the CEO made; now they are 1/300th (yes, that’s accurate, in round numbers). State university degrees cost next to nothing. We built massive infrastructure (highways, airports) that fueled commerce and growth. That’s a recipe for a very successful society.

Indeed, if you want to mimic our most successful era, you wouldn’t be blindly championing “capitalism” - we’d be championing a system where regular workers made a good living. Where we invested in our society via education and infrastructure.

In 1950, the average CEO made about 20X that of an average employee.  It's now over 360X.

Capitalism in it's pure form is a ticking time bomb.  As Brisket aptly said, the wealthy should want better income equality more than anyone...when things go south it will be their heads on the pikes.  

[Francisco 2.0 32,290]

Her congressional portrait. Here for Icono to jerk off to:

[Incredulity 11,532]

Not toothy enough 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

4 hours ago, Smax said:

Most of those americans in debt and living pay check to pay check are because they have to have 4k tvs, new iphones and multiple cars in the driveways.

Yeah, I think you're mixing/confusing groups of people.

The kinds of people we are talking that are heavily in debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck, are not able to turn around and buy a $1,000 TV or $800 phone.

They are more worried about keeping the lights on and food in the fridge. 

[ADHD 28]

Metro PCS and bus passes.

[Hank Kingsley 20,635]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,232]

It’s a good question. He appears not to know.

[jimmyjazz 45,512]

She needs to be more clear.  Stop saying "you don't know how marginal tax rates work".  Show the math.

[Guest Lobo]

I'm starting to think we need new terms besides marginal and effective.  How about incremental and in-yo-face?  

[Aqua Buddha 14,488]

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

She needs to be more clear.  Stop saying "you don't know how marginal tax rates work".  Show the math.

He needs to show the math.

[Incredulity 11,532]

“I was told there would be no math.”

[ADHD 28]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

She needs to be more clear.  Stop saying "you don't know how marginal tax rates work".  Show the math.

By tweet? She probably does by YouTube, over a beer in her kitchen after recreating the Lionel Ritchie  "dancing on the ceiling" video.

I like how she includes the money bag emoji 💰instead of "💳💴💵💷💸💹🏧🏦".

💃!!!

[SquishMitten 10,395]

She is left wing lady Trump.  Granted, she’s not old and overtly hateful in that old person DGAF way like Trump is, which is worth something.  But she is:
1. A complete lightweight who uses media attention and simplistic, fantastical populist nonsense applause lines as substitutes for realistic substantive ideas and policy positions. 
2. Often wholly ignorant of the actual facts, but never lets that stand in the way of delivering a red meat line to elicit an emotional response from her supporters. 
3. Willfully deceptive, but her supporters always find a reason to excuse the ignorance and the falsehoods.  She’s young and unpolished!  She’s still learning! (Trump is a businessman not a politician! He’s still learning!)
4. Funnier / hipper than most politicians, which results in her delivering nice put downs and twitter troll smack.  This is, apparently, the key to political success now in both parties.  Yay America!
5. Benefiting from an emerging cult of personality among people who want to believe in her ridiculous promises of making everything great (and how easily and cheaply it can be done!), and among people who just enjoy owning the pubs and tasting right wing tears.  And the lengths the supporters will go to in order to hold her up as a champion ... I was always amazed at the conspiracy theories people would concoct to justify support of Trump, and now apparently we get to see the mirror image of how ACO is going to drain that Harvard Skull & Bones swamp.  Oh, and the whataboutisms!  But Hillary!  But Louis Gohmert!
It is depressing to think we are going to just swing back and forth from loud mouth idiots on one side of the aisle to the other, ad nauseum.  I really hope some moderate normal candidate beats Trump in 2020 and people decide twitter smack from politicians is so last decade.
 

Holy shit, man. Seek help.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

4 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

She is left wing lady Trump.

everyone I don't like is Donald Trump

[pyrohornIII 4,801]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I’ve put it this way here before, but I’ll do it again: what are we going to do about all of our morons? Half of the population is of below median intelligence. But for a few freakish exceptions, they are never going to make big bucks. And, they’re going to marry other morons (selection bias: I married a fancy college girl because I was a big time college boy, and most of you did the same).

Is every moron entitled to a G5 and a mansion? Of course not. And that’s not where the issue lies. It’s not that the morons don’t have a G5. It’s that they are in a position that if they miss a single paycheck, they get evicted. If their car needs a $1000 repair, they lose transportation and lose their job. If they get seriously ill, medical debt breaks them.

And they see the wealth accumulating at the top, where they’re lighting cigars with stacks of $100 bills now.

It is in our best interest - for ALL of us, including the wealthy, for folks who work a regular job to be able to survive a $1000 car repair, or not go broke because they got sick. They don’t need steak and caviar, but every person working a decent job should be able to breathe easy with some measure of security.

If enough of them can’t, then that’s when the pitchforks come out. History is full of that lesson. We should heed it.

Shift our focus from buying stuff to learning stuff.   Education is the key, here and abroad.  Both the love of learning and the system to provide education for all.

A harder task:

Reset our valuation system away from what you can keep for yourself, but for what you sacrifice for the betterment of others. 

 

[Js1 85,056]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

everyone I don't like is Donald Trump

Anastasis thought that rant was a little way too “both sides” 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Js1

[elfenix 34,167]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Reset our valuation system away from what you can keep for yourself, but for what you sacrifice for the betterment of others. 

 

if only there were some example of that, deeply ingrained into our culture, whom everyone could turn to as a guiding light for what that might look like.  too bad no one has ever been that. 

[ADHD 28]

You're talking about JFk right.

Jesus fn Krist.

[Patrick Bateman 3,903]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s a good question. He appears not to know.

He knows.... he also understands the politics behind it.  The specificity behind her comments are not only naive but they're destructive to her cause.  She's young and her twitter game is fire but she's not very experienced nor does she seem to understand the difference between theory and realistic implementation of economic thought.  Her 60 minutes interview may very well play well to her supporters but it's dumb politics and Dems should be able to admit it.  

 

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Her congressional portrait. Here for Icono to jerk off to:

Red lipstick isn't her thing.  I know, I know.... that's sexist.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Bama Chick 28,596]

sigh

Do we need to go over the red lipstick thing again?

[Smax 3,799]

9 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Her congressional portrait. Here for Icono to jerk off to:

 

I know you're joking but people who don't show at least some teeth when they smile make me leary

 

13 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

It was primarily caused by rapid population growth across the mostly blank slate that the US was.  The English were more capitalist than us, and yet they fled in droves to the US.  

 

The destruction of Europe's industrial base from WW2 helped 

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

It’s a good start for a number of people that aren’t ready for college, don’t know what they want to do, or just don’t want to leave home or attend a 4 year. Tech school should be more widely used by those that aren’t going to a 4 year, especially here when it is free. Electrical, HVAC, other specialties all have solid livings tied to them but you are going to start out low on the totem pole and have to bust your ass to get to where the money is. 

Would there be a down side to putting a work requirement on loan recipients with the colleges required to staff a number of positions? I worked in the campus grocery store my first year on campus to be able to eat and then worked full time from then on off campus. I was also one of the “dumb” ones that got married early in college and had two of us to support.

 

The push in the 80's and beyond that everyone needs a college degree to be successful turned out to be a bad idea

[Dahobbs 17,420]

5 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

He knows.... he also understands the politics behind it.  The specificity behind her comments are not only naive but they're destructive to her cause.  She's young and her twitter game is fire but she's not very experienced nor does she seem to understand the difference between theory and realistic implementation of economic thought.  Her 60 minutes interview may very well play well to her supporters but it's dumb politics and Dems should be able to admit it.  

 

Red lipstick isn't her thing.  I know, I know.... that's sexist.

Why is it dumb politics? She is a freshman congresswoman getting legit exposure, starting a discussion, and exciting her base. Nothing about that seems dumb to me. It is not like the Republicans were going to be nicer to her if she expounded more moderate ideas (see Hillary). 

[safe sex 11,659]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

sigh

Do we need to go over the red lipstick thing again?

Always and forever.

Sigh. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,232]

 
The push in the 80's and beyond that everyone needs a college degree to be successful turned out to be a bad idea

Even a broken clock, smax.

The notion of a college degree has not only inflated the cost of college and increased consumer debt while devaluing the bachelor’s degree, it has also caused labor shortages in key skilled vocational labor fields and contributed to both flattened wage growth and the deterioration of high school curricula.

[wildcat09 29,187]

13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So what do you really think?

I don't think she's the savior.  I don't think anyone her age is the savior.  I am quite excited that people like her are actually getting elected.  Your impractical criticism does (and should) fall on deaf ears -- we need dozens more AOC not fewer, because good intentions coupled with youthful naivete beat the living shit out of bad intentions coupled with a detailed knowledge of how shit works.

Yeesh.   Seriously, I fucking worry about people who post shit like you just did.  That's just flat out ridiculous.

Yeah, let's not lose sight of how remarkable it is that she actually appears to be a decent human being who wants to help normal people. We need many more of those, not fewer. Hell, the Republican party doesn't even have one, with the possible exception of Will Hurd. Think about the people who run for office as Republicans these days. They're complete fucking ghouls out to help the one billionaire backing them who likely decided to run for office for the pain the power they could wield would allow them to inflict on minorities. Most Dems aren't as monstrous, but they too are almost entirely focused on helping their rich donors. The difference between them and the GOP is the lack of animus toward the poor and the desire to throw the poor some scraps that don't actually provide any meaningful help.

AOC is already a huge step up on those two types, who probably make up 95% of the House and 99% of the Senate. Saying she needs to be an Economic Brain Genius capable of presenting complex economic policy proposals via twitter or she's no different than Donald Trump is completely fucking asinine. We should be encouraging more like her to run for office, not telling them they're not good enough.

[Aqua Buddha 14,488]

 

[Js1 85,056]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

I really don’t understand the arguments for what she is/is not.

the reality it that no on should get too excited in the beginning with any politician. In life it matters what you do, not what you say. 

The reality is that wasthington is reactionary and her true test and measure will be how she manages to get her policy done without getting in bed with the powers necessary to make it happen. 

[Smax 3,799]

Quote

Instead, they are seizing gov operations + innocent people’s pay until they get what they want.

 

 

hmmm sounds eerily similar to what she and the rest of the lunatic left want to do

[CO Horn 154]

21 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

hmmm sounds eerily similar to what she and the rest of the lunatic left want to do

You forgot to include the preceding sentence. 

[jimmyjazz 45,512]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

AOC is already a huge step up on those two types, who probably make up 95% of the House and 99% of the Senate. Saying she needs to be an Economic Brain Genius capable of presenting complex economic policy proposals via twitter or she's no different than Donald Trump is completely fucking asinine.

It also completely ignores the fact that at least 80% of our Federal legislators are equally incapable of presenting such proposals, on Twitter or not, and I'm probably being generous.

[wildcat09 29,187]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It also completely ignores the fact that at least 80% of our Federal legislators are equally incapable of presenting such proposals, on Twitter or not, and I'm probably being generous.

Given that Paul Ryan was the GOP's economic policy wonk and his proposals were straight underpants gnomes, I definitely think you're being generous.

[Brew 3,044]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, let's not lose sight of how remarkable it is that she actually appears to be a decent human being who wants to help normal people. We need many more of those, not fewer. Hell, the Republican party doesn't even have one, with the possible exception of Will Hurd. Think about the people who run for office as Republicans these days. They're complete fucking ghouls out to help the one billionaire backing them who likely decided to run for office for the pain the power they could wield would allow them to inflict on minorities. Most Dems aren't as monstrous, but they too are almost entirely focused on helping their rich donors. The difference between them and the GOP is the lack of animus toward the poor and the desire to throw the poor some scraps that don't actually provide any meaningful help.

AOC is already a huge step up on those two types, who probably make up 95% of the House and 99% of the Senate. Saying she needs to be an Economic Brain Genius capable of presenting complex economic policy proposals via twitter or she's no different than Donald Trump is completely fucking asinine. We should be encouraging more like her to run for office, not telling them they're not good enough.

I would say that the constant response to everything is where she falls into the Trump category for those on the other side. Maybe that’s the direction this is all heading, but personally I’m not a fan. It may be my “yelling at clouds” moment, but politics playing out on Twitter and having to respond to every perceived slight isn’t what I’m looking for. That doesn’t even get into her thoughts on policy.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Brew

[Dahobbs 17,420]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

I would say that the constant response to everything is where she falls into the Trump category for those on the other side. Maybe that’s the direction this is all heading, but personally I’m not a fan. It may be my “yelling at clouds” moment, but politics playing out on Twitter and having to respond to every perceived slight isn’t what I’m looking for. That doesn’t even get into her thoughts on policy.

Yeah, how dare she respond to bullshit attacks on her. She should just sit back and take it. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Smax 3,799]

43 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

You forgot to include the preceding sentence. 

 

no its irrelevant, executive over reach is nothing new, unless youre saying it only matters when the "other party" does it

[Brisketexan 104,462]

Yeah, how dare she respond to bullshit attacks on her. She should just sit back and take it. 

“Sitting back and taking it” is how Dems lost their ass I’m 2016. It’s a losing move these days. Someone may not like it, but it’s the new order. The old one ain’t coming back.

[CO Horn 154]

2 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

no its irrelevant, executive over reach is nothing new, unless youre saying it only matters when the "other party" does it

Confused as to how the legislative branch passing legislation constitutes executive overreach.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

“Sitting back and taking it” is how Dems lost their ass I’m 2016. It’s a losing move these days. Someone may not like it, but it’s the new order. The old one ain’t coming back.

I am also not sure it was ever a good idea. If someone says something stupid, point it out. Dont let them get away with it. You wouldn't pass up the chance in the courtroom. I dont see why public discourse on policy should be any different. It doesn't have to mean being infantile like Trump as Brew suggests. And I dont see AOC acting that way.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,824]

Confused as to how the legislative branch passing legislation constitutes executive overreach.

Narrator: it doesn't

[Smax 3,799]

1 minute ago, CO Horn said:

Confused as to how the legislative branch passing legislation constitutes executive overreach.

 

just saying if congress wont act, trump should and if possible take all steps without legislation 

[CO Horn 154]

Just now, Smax said:

 

just saying if congress wont act, trump should and if possible take all steps without legislation 

So the Democratic controlled house passes legislation and the Republican controlled senate refuse to bring it to a vote constitutes no congressional action? Got it. 

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

nm

Edited January 6, 2019 by Doc Reeves