Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[hobbes2702 12799]

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

sure.  go ahead and try and explain away how policy rooted in "redistribution" of wealth, call it "socialism", "collectivism", "communism", "totalitarianism", whichever term you want to use matters little as they all result in the same outcome, is an example of how a society should be run.  Give us one example where the people ruled by such policies are thriving as a major power, and have economic and personal liberties.  It won't take you long in your search.  There isn't one.  But keep on believing that policy can work in some form and result in a higher standard of living for it's subjects despite zero examples in history.  

None of those words are synonymous with one another.

[Cajun 11675]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Actually, this is you owning yourself.

C'mon Cat, no racist, mysoginist, nazi accusations?

Up your game bro.

[housious 468]

10 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I grew up poor.  And I’m giving it all away when I die.  If I’m lucky enough to see the revolution, I’ll welcome death.   

No kids gives you an interesting take on life.  

I'd like to personally thank you for making the decision to not reproduce. 

[Brisketexan 104558]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I won't be bringing anything. When the guillotines fire up, they're coming for me, as well. (And rightfully so.)

It's not a threat, bud, it's history. If we oppress the poor hard enough they will move past the whipped-dog stage. Better to fix society first; it's cleaner for everyone.

This.

What folks should note with some interest are people who are actually IN FAVOR of capitalism of some flavor (and by the way, let's dispense with the notion that any functioning economy is "purely capitalist" or "purely socialist" -- you're just playing ideology identity politics and not understanding a gotdamn thing about political and economic systems) are advancing and supporting policies to reform our system to address this:

Because THAT is unsustainable.  And yes, it ends, eventually, in collapse, guillotines, or both.

Those of us who are at risk of our necks being under the blade should be MOST in favor of such reforms, not opposing them.  And, you know, a society that never descends into a frenzy of decapitations, well, that's probably a better and more successful society for everyone.

[David Dennison 18652]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I won't be bringing anything. When the guillotines fire up, they're coming for me, as well. (And rightfully so.)

It's not a threat, bud, it's history. If we oppress the poor hard enough they will move past the whipped-dog stage. Better to fix society first; it's cleaner for everyone.

We've managed to distract the poor and middle class with gadgets and entertainment. People in this country live hand to mouth, but as long as they have a dirt cheap flat screen and an off brand smart phone, we've convinced them being broke isn't so bad. There will be no guillotines here. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We've managed to distract the poor and middle class with gadgets and entertainment. People in this country live hand to mouth, but as long as they have a dirt cheap flat screen and an off brand smart phone, we've convinced them being broke isn't so bad. There will be no guillotines here. 

Don't use the present to predict the future. It's always a bad idea. The past is a much better predictor.

Anyone who thinks America is immune to violent revolution doesn't remember why America is even a going concern.

[Anastasis 23393]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

What folks should note with some interest are people who are actually IN FAVOR of capitalism of some flavor (and by the way, let's dispense with the notion that any functioning economy is "purely capitalist" or "purely socialist" -- you're just playing ideology identity politics and not understanding a gotdamn thing about political and economic systems) are advancing and supporting policies to reform our system to address this:



Because THAT is unsustainable.  And yes, it ends, eventually, in collapse, guillotines, or both.

Those of us who are at risk of our necks being under the blade should be MOST in favor of such reforms, not opposing them.  And, you know, a society that never descends into a frenzy of decapitations, well, that's probably a better and more successful society for everyone.

I would assume that the vast majority of those increases in productivity from 80-00s are related to technology. I would further assume that the the value generated from those technology-related increases in productivity have been distributed to the technology industries that drove the trend, and not necessarily to wages.  You see a signal as early as the 60s, but the trend really bends in the early 80s and then again in the mid 90s.  This coincides with trends in computing and the internet, respectively.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Anastasis

[Brisketexan 104558]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I would assume that the vast majority of those increases in productivity from 80-00s are related to technology. I would further assume that the the value generated from those technology-related increases in productivity have been distributed to the technology industries that drove the trend.  You see a signal as early as the 60s, but the trend really bends in the early 80s and then again in the mid 90s.  This coincides with trends in computing and the internet, respectively.  

Oh, I've never said that automation etc. hasn't played a role there -- it absolutely has.  But there's a whole lot more going on there, and you know that.

This ain't as simple as this speech:

Edited January 24, 2019 by Brisketexan

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

18 minutes ago, housious said:

I'd like to personally thank you for making the decision to not reproduce. 

They say the dumbest people have the most kids.  You’re smart I’m sure.

 

If you were half as smart as you are jealous, we could fix the world’s problems.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by ChiTownDoc
Oh, and you’re welcome.

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I've never said that automation etc. hasn't played a role there -- it absolutely has.  But there's a whole lot more going on there, and you know that.

Yeah, that was my point.  There is a lot going on in that graph. I just think that there are better graphs to make the point that you are trying to make.  Such as:

 

[Asithappens 974]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

They say the dumbest people have the most kids.  You’re smart I’m sure.

He probably voted for  Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

[Brisketexan 104558]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, that was my point.  There is a lot going on in that graph. I just think that there are better graphs to make the point that you are trying to make.  Such as:

 

Yet, you don't disagree that SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!  

Interesting....I'm on to you.

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

Just now, Asithappens said:

He probably voted for  Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

He’s one of those silver spoon softies.  They get bent when someone does better than them.  His parents should have worked harder.  #shame

[F250 28680]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol.  Let’s not make that the standard.  See Trump.  

Or the Cut Throat Chip thread or Jade's cousin/uncle thread from ToS.

 

[Cajun 11675]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

No kids gives you an interesting take on life.  

It certainly would have given me a more interesting take on my bank account.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, Footballpants said:

Superstar, ha! The reason this thread is so popular is the same reason the aggie thread is so popular on the football board - it's always good for a laugh. She's a buffoon with zero self-awareness. She truly believes she's the smartest person in the room and does not acknowledge her lack of experience, lack of understanding of basic U.S. civics, and lack of understanding of basic economic principles. 

She has great twitter game though, and nice tits. Subscribed!

Other than the great twitter game and the nice tits, you just described Trump perfectly. She has more self-awareness, smarts, experience, and understanding of basic U.S. civics and economic principles in one of her tits than Trump has in his entire bloated body.

[Fozzz 152]

18 hours ago, Footballpants said:

Michael Dell, though imperfect, has improved the lives of literally millions of people through his business endeavors and foundation. You might want to focus your disdain elsewhere, because he is undeserving... 

How do those boots taste?

[Dahobbs 17437]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Other than the great twitter game and the nice tits, you just described Trump perfectly. She has more self-awareness, smarts, experience, and understanding of basic U.S. civics and economic principles in one of her tits than Trump has in his entire bloated body.

Yeah, I really don't get the Trump comparison. She seems intelligent and willing to learn about the issues. She does occasionally get ahead of her skis, but she has time to learn. Finally, and this is a big one, her motive appears to be actually helping and representing the people rather than glorifying and enriching herself. 

[Brisketexan 104558]

Yeah, I really don't get the Trump comparison. She seems intelligent and willing to learn about the issues. She does occasionally get ahead of her skis, but she has time to learn. Finally, and this is a big one, her motive appears to be actually helping and representing the people rather than glorifying and enriching herself. 

These. She’s young and still ignorant of some things (I sure was at her age. And, confession, I still am - always learning).
But she’s intelligent and her motives seem to be on the right side of the ledger. That’s huge. Well, these days it is.

[Incredulity 11559]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

People don't give up shit when they die.  People with the means structure their assets in such a way as to minimize inheritance tax. But put that aside.  There is little conceptual difference between a wealth tax (like many europeans countries require) and an estate tax. If you are OK with an estate tax @75% over 200MM, you should be able to find thresholds for an annual wealth tax that are acceptable.  

Sounds like an effective tool to crater the stock market and destroy wealth.

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

18 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Other than the great twitter game and the nice tits, you just described Trump perfectly. She has more self-awareness, smarts, experience, and understanding of basic U.S. civics and economic principles in one of her tits than Trump has in his entire bloated body.

I am not totally against ACO.  I prefer Beto....either way we can’t dumb down the convo by comparing candidates to Trump.  If/when it comes to D vs R and he’s the nominee, then fine.  But for now hell no.  Fuck that low ass bar.  

[jimmyjazz 45546]

3 hours ago, Footballpants said:

She's a buffoon with zero self-awareness. She truly believes she's the smartest person in the room and does not acknowledge her lack of experience, lack of understanding of basic U.S. civics, and lack of understanding of basic economic principles. 

I don't agree with your characterization, but I will say this:  if you're right, she has a lot of company in Washington DC.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I really don't get the Trump comparison. She seems intelligent and willing to learn about the issues. She does occasionally get ahead of her skis, but she has time to learn. Finally, and this is a big one, her motive appears to be actually helping and representing the people rather than glorifying and enriching herself. 

I agree. I am not comparing her to Trump. I'm saying she is the opposite of Trump. I'm contrasting her to Trump.

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

I agree. I am not comparing her to Trump. I'm saying she is the opposite of Trump. I'm contrasting her to Trump.

 

Yeah, I knew that. I wasn't talking about you, but the other folks that keep saying she is the left version of Trump. 

[Cajun 11675]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I really don't get the Trump comparison. She seems intelligent and willing to learn about the issues. She does occasionally get ahead of her skis, but she has time to learn. Finally, and this is a big one, her motive appears to be actually helping and representing the people rather than glorifying and enriching herself. 

From the standpoint that she operates from a position of making grand, somewhat histrionic statements rooted in little fact, she is like Trump.

Her world is one of zingers, one offs, gotchas.

That's Trump and that's AOC.

In many other aspects they aren't comparable.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Cajun

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Her tactics are similar.

Her substance is where they differ.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I knew that. I wasn't talking about you, but the other folks that keep saying she is the left version of Trump. 

OK, sorry.

Carry on.

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

5 hours ago, Cajun said:

From the standpoint that she operates from a position of making grand, somewhat histrionic statements rooted in little fact, she is like Trump.

Her world is one of zingers, one offs, gotchas.

That's Trump and that's AOC.

In many other aspects they aren't comparable.

Not really.... Yes, she tends to engage in hyperbole and/or will play loose with facts when she misstates adverbially, but most of the core of her message is rooted in some data point or evidence.  She rarely, that I've seen, makes things up out of thin air.  That's the biggest difference.  Trump will invent things and says even the dumbest, non-sensical shit when he wants to talk over something he's ignorant about (which is most things).  AOC needs to understands when she plays into hyperbole, it will undercut her credibility with some critics and that does her message a disservice, but Trump flat out lies.... a lot, so they're not that similar other than they're both tremendous at brand awareness.  AOC seems to have some self-awareness, Trump has none....

 

[Message Board User 12389]

23 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Not really.... Yes, she tends to engage in hyperbole and/or will play loose with facts when she misstates adverbially, but most of the core of her message is rooted in some data point or evidence.  She rarely, that I've seen, makes things up out of thin air.  

 

Lulz.

 

[Cajun 11675]

On 1/24/2019 at 6:10 PM, Patrick Bateman said:

Not really.... Yes, she tends to engage in hyperbole and/or will play loose with facts when she misstates adverbially, but most of the core of her message is rooted in some data point or evidence.  She rarely, that I've seen, makes things up out of thin air.  That's the biggest difference.  Trump will invent things and says even the dumbest, non-sensical shit when he wants to talk over something he's ignorant about (which is most things).  AOC needs to understands when she plays into hyperbole, it will undercut her credibility with some critics and that does her message a disservice, but Trump flat out lies.... a lot, so they're not that similar other than they're both tremendous at brand awareness.  AOC seems to have some self-awareness, Trump has none....

 

Brother, pulls thing out her ass.  Watch the Tapper interview.  She had no clue, so she just kept talking in circles.

I'm not saying she's exactly like Trump, but man you swung and missed on that post.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

On 1/24/2019 at 1:16 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Her tactics are similar.

Her substance is where they differ.

I discussed her substance, and the inevitable wreckage it will bring, in depth. Anyone with a brain understands that $3 trillion a year in new expenditures would bankrupt the country and destroy its economy. And that is but one of her harebrained and outlandish (government jobs for everyone?) ideas.

But do carry on.

[David Dennison 18652]

All this for a freshman backbencher.

Amazing.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

 

[Cajun 11675]

On 1/24/2019 at 1:16 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Her tactics are similar.

Her substance is where they differ.

No, not really.

Trumps on record with way more doosies, but give her a bit of time.

She's equally not intrested in accuracy, it's just that her inaccuracies are of the type that a bunch on this thread dig.

 

[Cajun 11675]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

All this for a freshman backbencher.

Amazing.

This cuts both ways.

I could say this about the stage she's being given here and all throughout the media.

All that for a back bencher?

Amazing.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Cajun

[Cajun 11675]

8 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

I discussed her substance, and the inevitable wreckage it will bring, in depth. Anyone with a brain understands that $3 trillion a year in new expenditures would bankrupt the country and destroy its economy. And that is but one of her harebrained and outlandish (government jobs for everyone?) ideas.

But do carry on.

Yeah, substance.  I'm not going to link all the tweets, but if you wanna read here's the link...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/?utm_term=.db122fd76b99

Those right wing haters over at WAPO.

Cue up the minimization-rationalization machine.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Cajun

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:38 AM, Cajun said:

No, not really.

Trumps on record with way more doosies, but give her a bit of time.

She's equally not intrested in accuracy, it's just that her inaccuracies are of the type that a bunch on this thread dig.

 

And you ignore facts and information in order to declare her statements inaccurate. What I am saying is that you are full of shit. 

Edited January 27, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Cajun 11675]

Then so is WAPO.  Go get 'em tiger.  Right wing nutcases, amirite?

When lecturing on ignoring facts, information, and being full of shit, it helps the credibility along when you're not wallowing in it yourself.

Pro tip.

[Dahobbs 17437]

23 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Then so is WAPO.  Go get 'em tiger.  Right wing nutcases, amirite?

When lecturing on ignoring facts, information, and being full of shit, it helps the credibility along when you're not wallowing in it yourself.

Pro tip.

Again, go back to our climate change discussion and admit you were full of shit. I've already admitted she gets ahead of her skis. But you are literally nitpicking every little statement or simply ignoring reality in order to conclude that she is lying. It is hilariously pathetic. 

[Dahobbs 17437]

I will also say that most of her big gaffes were before or right after her primary upset. She was essentially a young nobody with a bare understanding of our system and limited access to resources. It does seem that she has put in work since then and has actually tried to learn about some of the complexities. I haven't seen any major real gaffes reported on this thread since her actual election. And the statements that have been criticized were technically correct. 

For instance, one of the things she got lit up for recently related to her statements that computer algorithms can be biased. A bunch of media types countered that math can't be biased. Of course, AOC was actually right. Whether through design or through the type of inputs incorporated, algorithms can actually be biased. Garbage in and garbage out sort of thing. 

[Cajun 11675]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, go back to our climate change discussion and admit you were full of shit. I've already admitted she gets ahead of her skis. But you are literally nitpicking every little statement or simply ignoring reality in order to conclude that she is lying. It is hilariously pathetic. 

I never said she was lying.

She pulls things out of her ass, just like you are here.

[Dahobbs 17437]

Just now, Cajun said:

I never said she was lying.

She pulls things out of her ass, just like you are here.

You said she was owned by a climate scientist that was actually agreeing with her. I dont know what other point you could have been making other than you thought she was wrong. 

[Cajun 11675]

Wrong ≠ Lying.

"Owned" was hyperbolic.  I used it to point out the folly of hyperbole.  My hyperbole was innacurate.  Hers was equally innacurate.  You don't like mine, but you;re just fine with hers.

There's enough to muddy the water of climate change proponents who work their asses off to be exact, accurate, and factual w/o her throwing a big hyperbolic cow patty in the middle of it becuase fan bois get the chubbs over her every utterance.

Sorry fan boi.

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

35 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Wrong ≠ Lying.

"Owned" was hyperbolic.  I used it to point out the folly of hyperbole.  My hyperbole was innacurate.  Hers was equally innacurate.  You don't like mine, but you;re just fine with hers.

There's enough to muddy the water of climate change proponents who work their asses off to be exact, accurate, and factual w/o her throwing a big hyperbolic cow patty in the middle of it becuase fan bois get the chubbs over her every utterance.

Sorry fan boi.

 

Again, she wasn't wrong. The scientist didnt say she was wrong, in fact the opposite. And it wasn't hyperbole at any rate. If anything she underrated the threat of climate change. The scientist's point wasn't that we have more time to deal with climate change than stated by AOC, but rather less. Amazing that you still can't comprehend that. 

[wildcat09 29225]

5 hours ago, Cajun said:

Wrong ≠ Lying.

"Owned" was hyperbolic.  I used it to point out the folly of hyperbole.  My hyperbole was innacurate.  Hers was equally innacurate.  You don't like mine, but you;re just fine with hers.

There's enough to muddy the water of climate change proponents who work their asses off to be exact, accurate, and factual w/o her throwing a big hyperbolic cow patty in the middle of it becuase fan bois get the chubbs over her every utterance.

Sorry fan boi.

 

Man, this is a lot of effort to try to pretend that you didn’t in fact own yourself. Just take the loss, pussy.

[Cajun 11675]

Coming from a vag like you Cat, I'll take that as a resounding compliment.

No self ownage, just a bit over y'all's heads.

Imagine that.

[Asithappens 974]

3 hours ago, Hot Chick said:

She's the new Hillary for the RW.

I hope so.

Because if the RW thinks they can achieve the same outcomes with AOC that they did with HRC, they are in for a shock.

AOC is going to kick their asses.

[Cajun 11675]

7 hours ago, Hot Chick said:

She's the new Hillary for the RW.

 

Funny, I remember a time not long ago when every utterance from HRC was fawned over too by the LW.  Worked out great.

Like ten thousand spoons.

But hey, fan bois gots to do what they do baby!

Edited January 28, 2019 by Cajun

[Cajun 11675]

Yep.

Quote

 

 

The reason this awkward incident with Ocasio-Cortez is worth highlighting is because it speaks to the danger for Democrats of latching onto every Next Big Thing that comes along. Ocasio-Cortez could well be a future leader of the party and, at present, represents the beating heart of its liberal, activist wing. But she is not the perfect politician. She is not the person who has the magic formula to reverse the Trump presidency or to win the ongoing fight over the future direction of the party in 2020 and beyond.

This tendency to conflate the newest thing with the best thing is always stronger in the party out of power at any given time in Washington. Democrats are out of the White House and in the minority in the House and Senate. They are desperately seeking a savior -- and Ocasio-Cortez, for some, fits that bill.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats/index.html