What lessons shall the new Congresswomen Alexandria Cortez learn?
It seems to me this newly elected member of Congress could use some help. She seems energetic, expressive, full of passion and wanting to do good...
Being the youngest member of Congress at age 28, she did not have much experience as a leader or legislator...
Perhaps we can give her a leg up and teach her some basics.
Here are a few ideas...
Lesson on American Civics,
Economics 101,
Foreign Policy,
How to introduce a Bill,
Capitalism and the free enterprise system
Perhaps you can suggest some more...
The year is young and she has 2 years to serve.Jack, Cortez hopefully won't last long because she is deemed too radical for many Democrats. While Democrats in Manhattan are very liberal, even radical, those in the outer boroughs such as Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, & the Bronx are more moderate in their sociopolitical views.
That is exactly why I started this forum. I want her to do well and not be marginalized by her own party.
I called it as I see it.
I am not an idealog.
I will criticize sometimes and make suggestions other times.
This is one where she is so young and inexperienced, she needs all the help she can get.
Wasington DC is a House of Cards...The last part is true. Washington DC is a pit of...…...VIPERS. One has to be cunning to succeed in Washington DC.
She is young and certainly opinionated. I honestly don't think she'd take your (or anyone's) advice. However, I don't see why she needs to stand on, or bow to, convention. If she has good and viable ideas, they will find their way to the floor.
I would say her primary downfall is going to be impatience.It is good to be opinionated if it is with logic & analysis. Cortez has a utopian purview. She leans towards socialism in her stance towards the poor. She believes that people should be given amenities such as free health care, education, & other things. She could be called unrealistic if not delusional in her stance. She isn't a mature woman.. Mature people maintain that if one wants something, it must be earned or paid for. Nothing in life is free...……….NOTHING!
We'll see what she evolves into, as she learns the ropes and the ramifications of her ideals are considered for implementation.
Bernie Sanders promoted this phenomenon of the young, inexperienced and unqualified running for (Democratic) political offices. The right needs to follow suit. But they won't run and they wouldn't be elected if they are not qualified. Why is that?
I ask.Agreed, and in many cases, when something is free, it cheapens it. Our society has the mentality of money associated with quality. When you make something free, you are unintending to say it is not worth very much...
EXACTLY. When people get things free, they don't appreciate such things at all. When things are expensive, they are greatly appreciated for their worth.
I suppose you and Jack are speaking for everyone?
Randy, why do you suppose that?
It is a free country and you and anyone else here on HubPages can voice their opinion...
Of course the caveat is not all opinions are equal.
Some are more truth than others...
In fact, it is like capitalism. May the best opinion win in the market place of idea.
Material goods of better quality generally are more expensive, though not always. However, a human life should not be saved or discarded based upon how much money that human possesses, at least not in my value system.
In this society, people's value is based upon their net worth. Socioeconomically wealthy/affluent people are treated far better than those who are socioeconomically poor. People are treated accordingly to how much money they possess- that is THE REALITY of it all.
What are you talking about?
What do you think money is?
It is a token invented by man to substitute for “value.”
It used to be gold but we went off the gold standard many decades ago.
Now, we rely on money as the medium for commerce and bartering is replace by cash.
Therefore, cash = labor = work = wealth = prestige = power.
Only a communist or socialist would think otherwise.
Even Communist Russia and Communist China recognized this. Why don’t you?
What element of your education and background causes you to think the way you do?
Who influenced you? Your parents, your church, your teachers, or your liberal professors? Ask them if they would work for free?I am not a socialist, but I believe the value of a human being should not be based on how much money he or she possesses.
Then you are probably a Buddhist. One of the few groups that value the spirit more than the material world. In fact, the goal of all Buddist is to reach a state of Nirvana...
There are also a few Christian sects that take a vow of poverty, however, they also rely on donations to stay alive.
You are living in a dream world. No one is saying that life has no value.
Only pro choice people think that.
We value human lives above all others.
However, in practice, we needed a currency to exchange and conduct our commerce.
A person should be judged by many things and one of them is their accumulated wealth. Another is their character, honesty, trust worthy and compassion.
You cannot put a $ value on love or friendship. Yet, we all treat those very highly. Does this make more sense to you?My position is simple, at least to me. I believe a regulated free market should determine the value of the vast majority of goods and services.
I believe a human life should not be valued by its material wealth.While I don't necessarily disagree in total, that little term "regulated free market" has an awful lot of leeway in it, from total government control of prices of products and labor to a completely free market such as we see in international trade. At the end of the trail, the value of goods and services can only be what the seller is willing to sell for and the buyer is willing to pay. When there is agreement value has been set.
Absolutely a human life has no monetary value. We do not buy/sell people so there can be no such value set. The closest we can come is in pricing health services, but even then the price refers to the cost of the care, not the value of the person involved.
I would ask you to answer your last paragraph's questions, Jack. Who influenced you to think the way you do? I'd really be interested to know..
The answer is easy. I am a student of history. I learn from history through reading. I also learn from my own life experiences. I learn what ideas works and what ideas don’t. That is called discernment.
I also learn from reading the Bible. Even though it is a religious text, it contains many wisdoms.
The reason is simple. It is inspired by God to teach us, his children how to behave and how to treat each other and how to live.
My conservative philosophy comes from Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, and John Locke.
I also derive many of my guiding principles from our Constitution.There was actually no doubt about that, Jack!
I don't have to listen to an invisible god of any sort, Jack. And you're not the only student of history on this site either. Face it, you're no better at discerning what's proper or not than any of us here. You simply THINK you are.
And you are more experienced then she is to give her advise!?
Not experience about being a politician, but life experience for over 60 years...
And common sense ideas most of us learned in school.
And experience with history of our nation.Of course we can give our own opinion about politics. But don´t you think it´s a bit patronizing and belittling how you formulate your title.
I think if someone has the ability to win a seat in Congress he or in this case she has proven that she is serious and capable to move people. (emotionally and literately.)
Trump did not have any political experience either and he is over 70.
And to me he has no common sense. To you maybe which shows the subjectivity of the phrase common sense.
And experience in history? I´ll bet as a New Yorker she experienced 9/11 quite intense....I disagree. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Ms. cortez. I take the position that she was elected by the people, her constituants. Therefore she qualifies to serve under our Constitution. However, she also makes a pledge in an oath when she is sworn in. That oath, you can look it up, is not just words. It means something to our founders and should mean something to all American citizens. One cannot support and defend our Constitution when you don’t have a good understanding of that document.
Also, she is very young. Even though our founders never put an age restriction on serving in Congress, perhaps they should. They never imagine a time when a 28 year old bartender would be elected to high office.
To put it bluntly, she is one of 435 members of Congress among a nation of 320 million.
Is this the best we can muster?Is Trump the best you can muster, Jack? Of course, he knows more than anyone about everything as he admitted. You buy this BS apparently!
He is a successful businessman, builder, philantropist, and TV personality. He has accomplished much with his life. His personal life has a lot of baggage but weren’t we told after Clinton that it didn’t matter?
I personally think it does matter but I was a minority opinion back then.
Yes, he does not have political experience but he definitely shows he has what it takes to be an executive, who delegates and who can make the tough decisions and who can make the deals...
Comparing Cortez to Trump is no comparison.
I do believe we need to change our Constitution with an amendment and require our elected officials to pass a basic civics test before taking office.
It just makes sense.I would take it even one more step...
Why not have each citizen past a basic civics test before being registered to vote.
The dumbing down of our society thru the public education system is shameful.
You have people graduating high school who cannot read or write or do math and we allow them to vote? How insane is that?You had age as an argument. Trump is over 70 and showed he has no political experience nor the will to learn.
So age has nothing to do with it.
You say Trump has other experiences...like TV personality....WOW, so does Kermit the frog...sorry but you need better arguments.
But you touched something.
Apparently being famous is important for many people to vote for him or her. I find this a stupid argument, but apparently it counts.
We live in the Instagram and Vloggers age. In other words, there are lots of people who come out of nowhere, without a "skull and bones" education, who have the potential to become politicians on a young age.
This disrupts the law and other of the elite. (left and right)
We live in a digital age and it changes the political landscape. More and more millennials find their way in politics.
I don´t see anything wrong with this. It´s refreshing. I would encourage people who are sick of old fashioned politics and high end corruption to vote for young people. May it be left or right. They still have the spirit and energy and aren't cynical and corrupt yet. To me being a young politician is an plus not an disadvantage.As long as they know what the rules are...I agree with that statement, that is why I propose a simple civics test.
So let me ask this question, can anyone be a congressman as long as the people elected him or her?
Even if they don’t speak English for example?
Or someone who is trained as a Muslim cleric?
Or someone who is a Buddhist monk?
Or someone who is fresh out of High School of NYC public school?
What criteria should we use to determine if someone is qualified to serve?
There must be some minimal standard? No?Apparently not, as even a conman can be elected POTUS as we've seen with Trump.
What is the con? He told the voters exactly what he is about, he wanted a wall, he gave a list of Conservative judges he would appoint, he wanted renegotiate trade agreements, and he wanted to kill the Iran nuclear deal and get out of Paris Accord. All MAGA...
Where’s the con? I like to know...
Unlike Obama who said if you like your Dr. You can keep your Dr.? Like that con?
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
In Federalist 52, James Madison of Virginia wrote that, “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I doubt our founders ever visualized a nation where professional politicians make a lifetime living out of being a politician.
We've had enough of that, and all it has done of produce a power elite that cares nothing for the nation or it's people. Time for a change.What is a reasonable limitation?
I wonder if the founders ever imagined a 28 year old bartender with socialist ideals and no knowledge of our Constitution would qualify let along being elected?jackclee, I think you are letting your conservative perspectives cloud your perspective, Would you have the same concerns if she were a conservative Republican electee,
For instance, Elise Stefanik was elected in 2014, (she was 30, 0ne year older than Cortez). Did you have the same concerns then? Afterall she was elected to New York's 21st district, as close to you as Cortez is)
Did you start a thread offering her advice?
GANo, because she was not in the media all day long making statements that are infantile...and that is being kind.
Jacklee, if you do not agree with people with opposite opinions going for congress or even president you are asking for a dictatorship.
If according to you only people of your political preference may be elected you are on the wrong line of democracy.
A true democracy shows all kinds of politics. from the far left to the far right, from religious to atheist. If you don´t think others have the right to promote their point of few you are restricting freedom of speech.
Do you really want to live in a one party system?Boy are you on the wrong track... I was not criticizing her merely because I disagree with her opinions... I was trying to help her and she does need help? Don’t you agree? If she keep this up, she will not survive DC... this is not Ms Smith goes to washington if you get my drift.
Ha! The words my alter-ego thought of, but I took the simpler route. "Would you want someone telling you who you could choose to represent you."
You more than adequately explained my "within the mandates of law" condition.
Well done IslandBites. There might be hope for you yet. ;-)
GA
I think their constituency should have the Right to make that decision jackclee. That should be the only required qualification. Within the mandates of law of course.
Would you want someone telling you who you could choose to represent you?
GANo of course not but our state of the country is in dire need of education and civics... she is a living example of our failed edicayion system and that I blame the teachers union...
jackclee, Politely, and simply put, I think you are misguided. Do you blame the teacher's unions for "edicayion system?"
Perhaps that was too harsh. perhaps you are using your phone for these responses, but, even on a phone spell check highlights such errors.
Your denials of partisan influence don't stand-up to scrutiny jackclee. I wonder if it would be worth the effort to look around and see just how much "in the media" Elise Stefanik was when she was the youngest member ever elected to the House.
I'll let you decide that.
GAThanks for correcting my spelling. You are right I was using my iphone and my typing skill is not what it use to be.
If you don’t think the teacher’s union is part of the problem, where have you been?
Our public education system have deen decimated by the unions. They refuse any attempt to fix the problem but always want more money to support their benefits...
Things like charter school and vouchers are great solutions to help improve the inner city schools but they have a strangle hold on the local politicians. I know this first hand, I talk to many teachers and educatiors and administrators. They confirm that it is the unions that drives everything...
Best you got...my typo and nothing on the topic.
What do you think is the cause of our failed system?I never agreed that it’s failed in the first place.
It was a hilarious typo. It made me laugh. That’s all.So you think our public education here in the States is doing a fine job? What planet are you from?
We have high school grads who can’t read or write, or balance a checkbook...
Social promotion is killing our next generation.Jack giveth with a funny typo.... and Jack taketh away with a lecture on kids these days.
A few years ago I asked a new employee, just out of high school, to climb a ladder and take a measurement for me. He did so, reporting "27 and a big mark and a little mark".
No, the system is not providing the education our children need.One dude couldn’t figure out how to take a measurement and the whole system must be broken eh?
One example may be an unfair way to make a point. I had a worker once whom I chastised for her work; asking if she was just color coding because she was too lazy to read the labels. I saw her picture in the paper months later. She was graduating from a program helping adults learn to read. Talk about finding my way out from under that tiny rock.
Cortez is unseaoned and inexperienced. Time will tell if she is unreasonable and unrealistic. She gained a position through her energy and idealistic views. Hopefully she can grow to find a way to have them work within a democracy. If not, she'll be a flash in the pan.
The only charge I can level against her at this juncture is a tendency to lie and a penchant for hypocrisy. That makes her a seasoned politician already.One sign of a true leader is humbleness. Reagan was the model. He did a lot as governor of California and later as the 40th president. He was seasoned, he was eloquent and he was humble. Even though he accomplished much, he never took credit. He always said “we” instead of “I”. Cortez, has passion and energy but she lacks a sense of humbleness. She thinks its all about her but that is not what a public servant is about.
I can relate to her. When I was 18, I was like that. I was smart, and had a great memory and I read a lot... I thought I knew everything and was on top of the world, graduating HS near the top of my class and heading off to college. I soon learned I knew very little. College opened up a whole new universe... It seems Ms. Cortez missed that chapter of her life. She is still that 18 year old...except she is now a Congresswomen...I'm willing to give her a chance. Unlike what I see from hard right or hard left proponents, think about what seems like childish and unfair constant needling of Trump, at every turn. That what I see here towards Cortez.
Give her a chance. Politicians don't start as politicians. They start as idealistic people who want to make a difference, or greedy dogs wanting to make a buck from power. People who want to make a difference usually are shortsighted, unaware of the reasons their ideals have not been implemented. She may surprise us all with growth and evolution into a realistic vision. She may nosedive quickly and eventually disappear from the public eye.
This is a democracy. We should graciously accept the will of the voters and attempt to understand the issues, as they see them; as they should on our views and compromise should be the goal. Not nitpicking personality or disparaging what we see as naive ignorance.
Tit for tat is a children's pastime, not a pretty stance for adults.I agree, but wouldn’t it be better if she take my advice...?
What am I suggesting that is off target?I would think your suggestion that she take your advice might reflect your need to review your own comments about the need for humility.
Cortez doesn't know you, from me. What would compel her to consider either of our input?It is not about me...
It is what she needs to do her job well.
Your whole premise is off target.
Regardless of who she learn this from, it is the information not the messenger.
Just because she doesn’t know me, she should not take my advice...
Even if that is what she needs...
That makes no sense.You don't know her. You don't know the journey which led to her mindset. You don't really know what she does,or does not, know. You are reacting to conclusions formulated by limited sound bites. Sounds bites designed to reflect a certain stance and create consensus. Your advice could be so off base as to be considered offensive.
I'll also point out that so many men taking the time to denigrate a woman could easily be seen as misogynistic, which would further harden her from listening to their 'advice'.Don't fall over now, but I commend your comments in this thread. :-)
I hold the same opinion of those who denigrate Trump at every possible turn. Minus the comment on misogyny. You approve in this thread but disapprove on the other side because of the one sided view you consistently display.
Wow. Okay. If you can't, or more likely won't, see the difference, then you are still contributing to and enabling the degradation of our country and our laws.
So...do you have any suggestion for Ms. Cortez?
No, she doesn't need my advice any more than any other politician.
Who am I to give her adcice? Of course, as time goes on, I will continue to have opinions about her positions, policies, and statements, just like I do for any politician. She hasn't done anything yet, except unseat an incumbent and express her views so she really isn't eliciting much from me. I find it fascinating that male Trumpeters in particular, seem to have a problem with her. It's weird.I’ll execept that.
You basically will let her sink or swim...
It is your perogative.
Yes and no. He is a showman and a blowhard and says things that are out of proportions and we all know that. Don’t judge him by what he says and more what he does in office. The media is the one going crazy with his every word but they ignore the good deeds he has done. So what do you want from him?
Do you want a nice guy and with all the decorum of DC but does very little? Or do you want someone who does what he promised his voters?
I prefer the latter.
Like him or not, he is consequential and not a loon or a clown or whatever the media wants you to believe today?
He is humble in the sense he just want solutions and does not care where it comes from...if a democrats propose a good idea, he will deal. That is the art of the deal. He is about creating a win win for everyone. In the trade deals, again, we are not out to screw everybody else but just asking for fairness which we haven’t had for a ling time.It’s not about what I want from him it’s about what I want from you which is to hold AOC to the same standards that you hold DT and not give her different ones because she’s young or a woman or a Democrat or whatever it is specifically about her that makes you condemn her for the same qualities you explain away or even praise in Trump.
I call it as I see it. What you are asking is not possible. They are two different people. I cannot treat them equally...
Instead of criticizing me, you should be doing the same and offer her advice to get her on board...
Just a suggestion.
I mean no disrespect to her.because she is young or a women. I have a daughter not much older than her and teo sons about her age...
I tell them the same thing.
They were not very engaged politically and did not vote in the last election...You are probably a very nice man, but you are displaying obvious unconscious sexism and ageism. You're not the only one, if it's any comfort.
How am I doing that? You throw those words around but tell me how?
If it is sexism to give a young women advice, I will gladly take on that label?
Explain to me how a person can learn and better themselves without the help of others around them?
I thought that was the mantra of the left - “it takes a village...”
Why is this even a sensitive area.
Are people so frail or sensitive when others point out the obvious that they need to defend it?
If you can explain it, I will apologize to her and anyone I offend with my words here.Let's take this one statement of yours:
"Don’t judge him by what he says and more what he does in office."
You are already negatively judging Cortez by what she says without even waiting to see what she does in office.
Further, you attribute Trump's stupid comments and outright lies to his magnificent media prowess while you attribute Cortez's statements to lack of knowledge, lack of education, and naivete.
An obvious double standard.I explained the difference in the previous post....
Not double standard.
I call it as I see it...
Like what I said before, you treat each person based on the individual.
That is how we are taught from the beginning.
You cannot treat everyone equally without taking the context of what goes before...
Do you treat your grand father the same you treat your friends? Of course not...
Do you treat a police officer the same as a car salesman?
Being capable of "moving people", or stirring emotional responses and manipulation of people to get what is wanted, does not indicate the tiniest bit of ability to determine the countries needs.
And THAT ability we have in plenty. We just don't have the second part of the equation.But we do have the part where we get to choose who we want to represent us. Don't forget bud, the wisdom is supposed to be found in the Senate.
The House is the people's voice, and we all know where wisdom falls in that paradigm.
GA
Wow, I can’t believe the conversation we are having here...not what I expected. What would it take to convince you there is a problem here? What if the people elected mickey mouse? Would that be ok too? Using the same arguments presented here...
Yes, jackclee, for Mickey's constituency that would be okay.
How much power do you think one voice of 435 has?
How do you justify condoning restricting someone else's choice of representative, but not you own?
"Would you want someone telling you who you could choose to represent you?" "No of course not..."
GAEven police, fireman, and sanitation workers and all public workers have to pass a basic test. Aren’t congressmen public servants? Why are they exempt? I am not telling someone who they can or cannot vote for. You twisted what I said or propose. I said these elected officials should pass a basic understanding of civics? You do know what that is don’t you? If someone doesn’t know civics, how can they do their job as a politician?
Perhaps you can be a surgeon? Why not?Why are they exempt?
Because the Constitution says so..? The one that you're always talking about.That is why perhaps we need an amendment. They never envision illiterate citizens voting for popular personalities that doesn’t know the basics.
As a conservative, I never said the constitution is cast in stone, just there is a process to make changes...unlike the liberals who use judges to get their way.Illiterate voters, people electing their representatives, judges with some power...
Seems to me you object a lot to that good old constitution, eh.No, don’t put words in my mouth. All I said is perhaps we need an Amendment to the Constitution to insure the poeple elected to office actually have some knowledge of the constitution. It seems we have too many politicians tha don’t and perhaps that is why we are in such dire straights...no? Do you have a better solution? But then again why are you defending her? What is it about Cortez that you support? I never seen such devoted followers when she hasn’t done one thing yet...
And we need a test for voters as well, Jack. What if you failed the test?
I won’t fail. The test is a basic test, in English...and about civics.
I hope you spell better on the test than you do here.
No jackclee, I cannot be a surgeon. But I can be a voice for a group of folks that want me to speak for them.
What qualifications, more than the folks wanting me to do it, do you think I need to do that?
As a side note, judging from the history of your responses in these forums, I would think you would welcome a non-political animal as a political representative.
GAI do like outsiders and I love her passion but I just think she need more basic knowledge of our system. You can’t make changes if you don’t know how our system is set up...
Hence my question that started this forum topic...
She's the Democrat version of Sarah Palin, except dumber. The only lesson she should be learning is how to quit.
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
She may indeed eclipse Palin in intelligence, though it could be debated. She certainly does so in (political) ability. As well as general sliminess and political-speak. There isn't a truthful bone in Pelosi's body; she is simply a giant pile of political slime, mouthing whatever she thinks will achieve her goals. It makes me shudder to hear the smooth, suave, convincing way she puts out her lies and spin.Truly a master politician, nearly the equal of H. Clinton, and utterly worthless as a leader or guiding beacon.
Your post reassures me she's a good choice for the office, as is Nancy. Like the old white men running your party now, you seem to prefer them to women--and especially those of color--despite their intelligence. Thanks !
Yes, I'm beginning to see a pattern among Trump supporters in particular. Their boogeyman politicians are all women (now that Obama is out of office). Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Hmmmm.You hit the nail on the head. It certainly seems that women are always attacked. And when they come forward with accusations against men, Republicans ALWAYS defend the man.
Yes, that is why I'm asking for specifics. What does she do that makes her "a creepy piece of work"?
What multiple and apparently horrific lies has she told that would elicit "There isn't a truthful bone in Pelosi's body; she is simply a giant pile of political slime."
I would really like to know.She's "creepy" because she stands up for what she believes in. Something abhorrent 50 years ago, but there's apparently still some holdovers.....
When Paul Ryan was new on the scene, he was around the same age as Cortez. Everyone acted like he was the boy genius, and he had weird ideas about how an economy should work. That was ALL he had to offer.
Whether people like Nancy Pelosi or not, she's the best at what she does and knows how the game is played. Nobody can beat her. McConnell and Ryan have done nothing except obstruct. Even if everyone went back to the agreement they had before President Coulter and VP Rush Limbaugh got in a hissy fit, a deal could be made.
The sexism here is astounding. Look me in the eye and tell me Hillary would have been a worse President than Trump, a moron who reads at a 5th grade level and has no idea how government works. He told people who aren't being paid to "have garage sales or become dog walkers" to make ends meet. He would be more useful doing something like that.
I don't believe the hot/crazy scale Alexandria Orcasio Ortez is being judged by. If she belonged to the "old boys" club, somebody would have already taken her aside and told her to listen more and speak less until she formulated some clearer ideas.
HRC was never charged/indicted with anything.
Her latest faux pas -
https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c … years-if-w
Can Al Gore weigh in...?
What has she been learning at Boston U.?
I would demand a refund.She is actually young enough to be around in 12 years...
Most climate extremist make predictions for 30 years or more...so they would be long retired or gone.
She will be 41 in 12 years 2031.This is getting to be bizzarre...
Another latest statement -
https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c … ires-exist
I want to know what course in economics she took at Boston U. And the name of the professor.
This is just insane.
What else does she want next, execute the pigs...
Didn’t she read “Animal Farm” by George Orwell?
It was required reading when I was growing up 50 years ago.
Yep. Pelosi is a creepy piece of work. It makes me wonder about the level of intelligence of those who keep reelecting her and proves blindness to all but party in any who defend her.
What does she do that makes her "creepy"? Is it her policies?
Creepy. That's a good word for what I feel when I watch her. Super smooth, not a hint of honest emotion and everything that comes out is carefully designed and delivered in such a way as to give a false impression of something. The ultimate manipulator, the epitome of modern, powerful politicians. And that's creepy.
It is entirely possible we aren't speaking of the same person. The Pelosi I have seen is creepy as poop.
It's funny how the left categorizes the right as 'old men' while the leadership of the left is old as dirt, pretty much out of touch with the concerns of the voters on the left, as evidenced by people such as Cortez. The average age of democrats in Congress as of last year was 61 years old. Pelosi is part of a strong arm machine stifling meaningful involvement of the very people the democrats count on to get them elected.Yes, Mitch is a spring chicken as well! You want to talk creepy? Devin Nunes is about as creepy a character as there is. I hope he gets his just deserts for protecting the cretin when everything is said and done.
"It's funny how the left categorizes the right as 'old men' while the leadership of the left is old as dirt. "
It is true that leadership of both Democrats and Republicans is pretty old. I think what you're missing is that Democratic leadership is also diverse while Republican leadership is not.
House Democratic leadership of the 116th Congress:
I had a hard time finding a similar photo of Republican House leadership. Maybe someone can do better:
Sorry wilderness. That comment was meant for Randy's reply to my post.
You're asking the wrong question, Jack. It should be: 'What lessons shall the new Congresswomen Alexandria Cortez teach you?'
She was elected as a direct response to Trump's divisive dictatorship and his supportive enablers.
She is a representative of how the extreme right has inspired more people from all over the political spectrum to participate in government.
No, she's not a polished politician. But, she could sure stand toe to toe with Trump if she had to. That's probably why she was elected moreso than for any other reason.
So relax. You already have an inexperienced politician with an inappropriate attitude in office in the form of your beloved potus. A few more politicians like that are no big deal, right?
No more need for you to be worried about her or try to 'help' her in this way with this obviously leading question. You're not fooling anyone.Fine by me...she can self destruct if she chooses.
AOC has her defenders...
https://nypost.com/2019/02/04/dan-crens … ter-users/More accurately, if you say something stupid on Twitter, you'll get corrected by a whole bunch of people.
I am not on twitter. I never will.
It is something that lets your emotions get the better of you.
When I first started using email in the 1970s, at work, one advice that stuck with me and served me well, was to don’t respond to an email right away...you can compose your response but wait 20 minutes before sending. The reason is you may say something in the heat of the moment that you regret later. By taking the extra time, you may have a chance to revise your tone.
It seems to me, twitter is exact the opposite. It encourage people to respond instantaneously and with only 144 characters...
This is the worst means of communications.
It gets the message out unfiltered.
Perhaps that is the only positive side.
It allows someone like Trump to get his message out without the biased media in the middle mucking it up.
" She seems energetic, expressive, full of passion and wanting to do good." All true. However, her political beliefs are based on socialism. She can talk a good game, but she does not have any skills to explain how she could accomplish any of her agenda? She appears to be rehashing the flowery ideas of the hippie movement from the 1960s. Yet, she is just starting her political career, I am not willing to bash her. She may do well in the world of Washington.
I am not trying to bash her but offering help.
Hence this forum...I am surprised by the reactions...and the numerous postings..
I must have struck a nurve.Did AOC witness a different speech?
Here is her reaction to the SOTU speech..l
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … untry.html
Trump may be many things but “scared” is not one of them.It is very clear you struck a nerve. I don't think you bashed her. Just gave your opinion. I pretty much have the same opinion.
Thanks, her latest interview over the new Green initiative is shocking...
How a college graduate like her can fall for these false predictions and also believe we can change by 2030???
This is what happens when someone with no real experience in the business world thinks. Just print more money...What is shocking is that she has a degree in Economics. She has to realize her ideas would bankrupt the country, yet she puts them forth as if everything will simply work out on its' own. The more I hear from her, the more I am coming to believe she is unethical and perhaps unscrupulous. My own son graduated with a business degree. He would never believe such foolishness, nor was he taught that socialists tenets are good for business or creating prosperity.
Your son is an intelligent adult...….(See where we are going here). Your son is reasonable. I believe that from AOC's speeches, that it is her intent to further bankrupt the country. When asked during an interview where will the funds for her green project come from, she replied that she doesn't care. Really, socialista. I am a Liberal Democrat who is becoming increasingly disgusted w/the leftist turn of the party!!!!
Nothing wrong with socialistic ideas. what´s wrong about caring for the ones in the society who find it more difficult to cope? it supposed to be a christian value.
Jacklee, you can´t offer help as you have zero experience in politics. So please don´t be so patronizing.What? I can’t offer her help. That is like saying you can’t be the commander in chief if you have not been in the military...there are a thousands situations I can name...
The help I suggested are common sense. Learning what is in our Consitution is the basics every high school student would know.
Some of her statements seems to imply she does not know this.,,
Her latest proposal of the new Green deal is a prime example. She is not a climate scientists...how is she qualified to tell the rest of us to stop using fossil fuel in 10 years?Here is another view on this ....
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/07/ … s-madness/First..this url (which is from a dubious unprofessional website) does not explain the Green Deal, it´s just opinions and combining the Name Cortez with Venezuela. Something that´s ridiculous as Venezuela has nothing to do with the Green Deal or Climate change.
Second Trump does not believe in Climate Change. So he won´t do a thing about it. And something has to be done.
So what for advise would you give Ocasio-Cortez to stop climate change?Learn the science and the real issues...the science is not settled as Al Gore said. I have many suggestions, including improving our current 30+ climate models...I proposed a national effort to create a universal climate model. This will give us more confidence in what is going on today. There are many reputable scientist that disagree with the current asessment of the IPCC... ther proposed solution, like the Paris Accord was a joke. That was why Trump pulled the US out of it.
It would do little to affect the global temperature... by 0.1 degree C.
How is that a solution?science is never settled. Wat is settled is a 98% consensus of the reality of climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it.
Trump is not doing anything, he is more concerned about building a wall then about climate change. As climate change is one of the biggest threats we face today. So you have to start somewhere. That's what many countries do. And they work together. As it is a global threat. Trump does not want to work together.
You have to start somewhere, we can not debate years about the exact effects of climate change before we start to do something.
So to start is stop using coal. promote solar, wind, water and nuclear energy. Worldwide. But start with your own country and work together internationally. Anny treaty is one step in the good direction.No, not debate. Get the science right. That 98% figure you quote is not a real number. Why do you think half the people are skeptical of this climate change? Man caused?
You can check out my hub on this topic which is extensive and goes back many years and with real data points from climate scientists and other disciplines...
This topic has been politicized by the politicians and environmentalists and it is not healthy. My skepticism is based on hard data. It is clear to me the earth is warming. It is clear to me that climate changes. It always have. It is not clear to me humans are the main cause. I have not been able to get a simple answer as to what percent of climate change is man made and what percent is natural causes?
I also have not been able to get a straight answer as to the time frame. No one seem to know exactly. All projections are for 30 years from now when many will be retired and collecting their pension.98% is a real number. it may be 97% but what it tells you is that a huge majority of the scientific community does not dispute the fact of climate change. Something that politicians (including Trump) lie about and don´t want to accept.
If the cause is man made (something I strongly believe in as it only makes sense. Anybody who does not think that 7.2 billion people on earth have no impact on the environment is dangerously naif) or not is in a way not an issue.
The issue is that climate change is real and something has to be done to stop it. How it should be done is politics. (and sadly enough politics only thinks about politics, money and the next 4 year, not about who they govern)
Another problem is the fact that it is a global problem, not a domestic/local one. And then politics becomes even more muddier.
I believe in science not in politics.Climate on this ball of dirt has ranged from being totally covered in ice to rain forests in Antarctica. It is in a constant state of flux, forever changing with causes ranging from the bacterial life that inhabits it to asteroid impacts to solar changes to changes in ocean currents.
And we, puny humans that we are, think we can halt that geological change and freeze it at the point WE like? Not likely.Here is my second most popular hub... and it is a debate over climate change with another hubber by the name of Doc_snow...
”hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They”
Just insert the http// to the front of it.
It is a very long piece and it sumarizes all the problems with the current “climate science”...
Here is a tip for you. The day Al Gore sell his beach house and his 20,000 sq foot mansion, and stop flying around in his private jet, that is when I know Climate Change is a serious problem.
Till then, he can tell us to stop driving our SUV and be the hypocrite that he is and scaring all our children in grade school with his documentary...full of exagerations and lies...
The people being patronizing are the media and her fellow politicians who are willing to let her make a fool of herself and burn out in a bright flare...such is politics in modern America. When I try to help, I am attacked.
I said it earlier you might have missed this conversation...
I like her. She is from my home town. I like her energy and her fresh new approach...and getting rid of a political insider who has done nothing for his party...all good. But now that she is in Congress among 534 other elected officials, she needs to propose and pass bills to help all Americans. Her extreme ideas will not fly...I am not proposing that we stop caring for those that don't cope. We have the most aggressive policies in the world to handle caring for those that can't cope. We also give billions a year in aid to other less fortunate countries to help their citizens. I just don't feel it beneficial to encourage our society to depend on the government.
I am seeing a pattern here. We have two type of AOC defenders. 1. She is fresh and new and just give her a chance...she will learn as she goes...and everything will be fine. Her apologists.
2. You are not allowed to criticize her or give her advice, you have no experience either and why whould she listen to you. After all, she did something right by winning an election as an underdog...she must know what she is doing. Her defender.
I must have hit a nurve and the elephant in the room is she she is inexperienced, and she has charisma and she is photogenic, and she is a women and a hispanic minority... she has all the right credentials...and appeal but unfortunately, she is a idealist and not a realist. She will take her party screaming and kicking down a socialist path, many of them don’t really wanted but must follow the flow for now. She is a phenonmenon not unlike Trump on the GOP side. She has her detractors just like Trump had to deal with party insiders. Good luck to her. The long knifes are out. House of Cards...is about to hit her where she least expects it.
It appears AOC has done it again...
She just equated the detention centers for illegal immigrants with nazi concentration caps.
This is more than ignorance. It is an intentional smear of the Trump administration.
Shame on her.Did you expect, or even hope for, anything else? Truth and honesty is NOT the forte of this creature; she lives through lies and innuendos, trying to push a failed philosophy and falsehoods.
At first, when she first came on the scene, I thought she was just ignorant. Now, it is clear to me she is much worst.
I'd have to disagree. Just ignorant appears to sum her up.
You seem to be fine when Trump does worse than she does. "Lies and innuendo" are the chief tools of your idol, Dan. You should be pleased AOC is acting like little Donnie the role model.
Still bashing Trump, whatever the reason or topic?
Not interested, and especially not interested in your declarations of what my idol might be.Still bashing AOC, whatever the reason or topic?
Sure, you're only interested in your declarations. No surprise at all...
Please provide the source that confirms she referred to Nazi concentration camps. The only quote I can find is:
"The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is exactly what they are"(1)
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFUD7N-bVoDon’t insult my intelligence.
These camps are well runned and the people treated with respect.
They are the law breakers and we are treating them better than they deserve.
Go to any other camps run by Mexico and compare...
George Taki, I love you in Star Trek and you are right about the Japanese intermment camps being wrong and we try to correct those wrongs with reparations.
Comparing the current camps to those are out of line.
I am offended by those here and elsewhere that compare Trump to Hitler and immigration holding facilities to concentration camps. No one is being starved, gased or killed."we are treating them better than they deserve"
For the record.I mean it. If AOC is going down this path to demonize our ICE people for doing their job under tough circumstances...
These people should know better. Some of them are putting their own children in harms way. Some of them are taught how to answer the right questions to seek asylum. Some of them are paid coyotes...we just don’t know...when we are flooded with an invasion of thousands of people, what do you expect will happen?
Those who criticize our immigration enforcement should go down there and walk in their shoes.
By the way, those of you who do not support the wall is getting the results of your actions.
The only thing that will stop these people from coming is a wall.Ad you may know by now, I don’t mince words. I call it as I see it.
If AOC really wants to help these people, as a member of congress, she should work on passing legislation to beef up border control, allocate money for the wall and detention facilities and most important of all, tell these people to stay home and apply through immigration channels legally. they would do themselves and their family a big favor by waiting and coming here legally, as every other country and group do.
And money for more judges to clear the asylum cases QUICKLY so we don't have overloads on our capacity to hold folks.
If we can convince Mexico it is not acceptable to become a highway for illegal aliens coming into America the extra judges won't be necessary. Leave them in Mexico until their case is ready to be heard and they will be stopped at the southern border of THAT country instead of entering this one.
What lessons shall the new Congresswomen Alexandria Cortez learn? I believe she has a lot to learn and has time to learn it... I think she will learn quickly to be very careful about making a statement that is so controversial, and hurtful to the Jewish people. It is also hurtful to the men and women that are trying to do the best job they can in these facilities. Last month there were over a hundred thousand men, women, and children that needed to be housed while being ushered into other accommodations across the country. Not sure if this task could ever be made easy.
Perhaps, our Government is doing the best they can at this point. We need revised immigration laws, not rhetoric. This problem is not new, and will no longer just take a quick bandaid. We need solutions, and only Congress can make or change laws. We don't need more grandstanding with hurtful over-blown words. What did Cortez gain with her statement but a bit of media coverage? Maybe her words would have meant more if she had visited a facility or two.
One thing citizens can do call your Congressperson request they vote on the funds President Trump has asked for to expand and build more detention centers, and improve conditions with n more staff, and judges to expedite the process immigrants must go through to enter America.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/trump-a … money.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ … ng-1354267
Your intelligence has been insulted hundreds of times on these forums, Jack. And you avoided answering the first question. Furnish a link with the Nazi quote as asked.
That doesn't address the issue I mentioned. Please provide a source that confirms AOC used the term Nazi concentration camps. I can't find any. Despite that, for those who believed she was, she later clarified:
"And for the shrieking Republicans who don’t know the difference: concentration camps are not the same as death camps.
Concentration camps are considered by experts as 'the mass detention of civilians without trial'.
And that’s exactly what this administration is doing" (1)
Could it be that some people are saying she used the term "Nazi", even when she later clarified she was not referring to death camps, because they want to foment outrage against her? Do you think that's a likely possibility Jack?
(1) https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1140990518974976000
What we can learn from Alexadria Cortez is how important fighting the climate breakdown is.
It is the most important issue of our time. And hardly any presidential candidate is talking about it. The Climate Breakdown problem has to come from a new generation.
Trump says America first, but he is a last in the line of taking action against Climate breakdown. No responsibility for the next generation whatsoever.
Alexandria Cortez is not running for president, but her fresh, shake up the US, action is important as old fashioned politics only concerns a small elite. Alexandria Cortez knows how it feels to live from a wage as a restaurant waiter. Trump was pampered all his live and has not a clue about the real world.
Its not a question of what we could teach Alexandria Cortez. It’s a question of what can we learn from her.What do you know about climate change? What does AOC know?
I have been following the climate change problem for over 25 years.
I can tell you it is a very complex system. It has been politicized...and has been co-opted by the environmental extremists.
The same people that say we need to fix this problem are the same group that attack Capitalism and wants to change the world to socialism.
It is all about power and control over human lives.
Just do a little research on your own on the web. There are tons of information out there. Find out for yourself what is the truth. Don’t be fooled by those that want to control you.
The truth is climate change is not all due to human activity.
Al Gore was wrong when he produce the documentary “an inconvenient Truth” Do yourself a favor and go watch it if you haven’t before and even if you have, watch it again and see how his predictions back then in 2006 have all failed to materialize.What credentials do you have that makes you so much more qualified than AOC, Jack? Other than you simply saying so, that is?
Climate Change is a fact Jackylee.
You finger point to "environmental extremists", as if they are the culprit because the are the bringers of bad news. Don't shoot the messenger.
The USA has politicized it because the Koch Brothers and the gas and oil industry wants you to be in doubt and argue over the theme as long as possible. So you will not take action.
Climate Breakdown is not an American problem, it is a worldwide problem. People from all over the world, different races, religions, political background and sex are working together in the science fields connected with the Climate Breakdown.
If you don't believe in a Climate Breakdown and the statistics from the NASA, I guess you don't believe people walked on the moon either.When did we begin to use the term "Climate Breakdown" (with caps, no less)? And why?
Certainly the climate is not "breaking down". It is changing slightly, but cannot "break down"; such terminology can only be useful in scaring people ignorant of the huge range of climate this planet has seen in it's long history.We have snowflakes being trained by liberal professors that cannot seem to think for themselves...
Stop with the non-sense comparison.
The people who worked at NASA that put the man on the moon are long retired.
NASA is not the same agency anymore...just like NOAA and the EPA has drifted away from their primary mission.
Climate change is not related to the environment.
I repeat climate change is not related to the environment.
To proof my point, we had EPA doing clean water and clean air back in the 1970s. It did a fine job with LA and NYC with the smog and the fumes.
It was done without any political motivation.
Today, it has been taken over by the extremist groups who wants to limit the population, stop eating beef and abandon all fossil fuel.
For a week, try an experiment to see if you and your family can do without fossil fuel.Better yet, try dumping anything and everything made of plastic and see how well you do. Nearly all of it comes directly from oil. And takes energy to produce.
That'd be easy. The key is to choose to live close to work and amenities. It's summer, so no fossil fuel for heat necessary. Our power grid is on nuclear.
Jack belongs to that 20% of scientists that deny man-made climate change. The difference is, much like Trump supporters in general, is that they believe their position to be the absolute authority on whatever topic they discuss despite the evidence to the contrary.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/No, you do not believe the facts NASA and other scientific institutions show. If you do not trust NASA, then you can as well believe the moon landing was a hoax. That's my argument. It's not really a strong counter argument to say, ah, that was a different NASA 50 years ago...
Of course climate breakdown is related to the environment. The weather is related/part of the environment. Without weather no environment, no life.
Please explain the sentence. "Climate change is not related to the environment." as maybe we have a different concept about the word environment.
To be honest I can easily do a week without fossil fuel. The only thing that would be a bit inconvenient is cooking. But in the summer I can cook with a solar cooker. For the rest I already live on solar power. and have a garden with veggies.
You asked it to the wrong guy. But I see your point. Nevertheless the fossil fuel can be swaped by for instance wind,solar energy, Geothermal energ or nuclear energy.
It's perspective. In Holland nobody questions climate change, only the extreme right wing party who has fascistic ideas (not in the popular sense). There is only a debate about how to tackle the problem. not that there is no problem.
The right wing news papers and parties are more thinking in the line of mineralizing tax on CO2 and making profit from the new energy resources like wind energy and seeing opportunities to sell eco friendly products and electric cars..
The left is talking about an economic model centred around local products and a local market.Peter, you are so naive. Do you know about climategate? Do you know how NOAA was caught re-adjusting raw temperature data to accentuate recent global warming by making previous decades to appear cooler?
Do you know the predictions made by Al Gore and other climate scientists never materialized?
To understand how NASA could change from an independent science organization into a political one, just look at our current FBI and DOJ.
Did you ever thought our top criminal justice system could be corrupted by people like Comey, and McCabe and Strozk and Page...?
As for not using fossil fuel for one week?
You miss understood my proposal.
I was not only talking about you the individual but our collective you of society.
Our complex society runs on fossil fuel.
From the cars, trucks jet places and tankers and trains...all powered 95% by fossil fuel.
Our hospitals, schools, farms, manufacturing plants, military and law enforcement and every agency you can think of uses and needs fossil fuel.
In case you don’t know, fossil fuel includes petro oil, natural gas, coal and LP and kerosene and diesel fuel...
They are all needed to keep things running.
The renewable energy people keep touting about, especially the new green Democrats, including wind, solar and geo thermal and water and nuclear power amount to a small fraction of the total energy needs of our country and the world.
Until you understand this, you are just a parrot that repeats what Al Gore and Leanardo DiCaprio say...while flying around in their private jets..."The renewable energy people keep touting about, especially the new green Democrats, including wind, solar and geo thermal and water and nuclear power amount to a small fraction of the total energy needs of our country and the world. "
It isn't a majority but it is more than a "small fraction". Renewable sources accounted for about 18% of electricity and about 12% of the total energy needs. Nuclear came to about 9%. Yes, that's only a fraction of the total electricity, but a really important fraction. Without it a whole lot of people will either go without or suffer constant blackouts.
Other countries have much higher percentages, partially because they don't use nearly as much electricity.If investigating a foreign nation who attacked our elections is corruption in your eyes, I find you to be treasonous against the security interests of the United States of America, Jack. It was clear that their aim was to support the candidacy of Trump, so investigating the relationship between that hostile foreign government and all the connections with that campaign was more than warranted to anyone who cares about our nation. So, every time you decide to say the DOJ and FBI are corrupt, I will call you the lying traitor to this country that you are.
No, you are mistaken. The whole investigation was based on a fake dossier created and paid for by the DNC.
The high ranking members of the FBI and DOJ corrupted themselves and try to use their power to unseat a duly elected president.
Look at all those involved who have been either fired or resigned...
It is unprecedented in US history. What is more unprecedented, is a press willing to follow along and cheer for the DNC.Check out this -
https://m.theepochtimes.com/strzok-join … 24607.htmlAnd here is a quote from Inspector General Horowitz's Report pertaining to the FBI during the 2016 election:
"Our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed."
See, unlike you, I prefer to get my facts from official government documents like this one: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download, as opposed to some biased opinion article. That's where your opinions are flawed and you spew them freely, having accepted someone's far-right slant on a topic as fact.
And when you spew that garbage publicly, slandering government agencies that exist to protect this country, I will call you out for that treasonous behavior.
I am mistaken? The whole investigation was started when Papadopoulous was approached by friends with connections to the Russian government, not the dossier as you falsely claim. That was clearly written into the Mueller Report.
Considering that, according to all those former federal prosecutors who read the Mueller Report, Trump firing someone would more likely qualify as an obstruction of justice charge as it would a mark against the person being fired since he ordered Mueller to be fired by Don McGahn.
And what the Mueller Report also showed was that the media was also dead on with their reporting and people like Trump and Sarah Sanders were the ones lying to the American public.
So, again. I find you to be lying in the face of clearly written factual evidence easily found in the Mueller Report. I find your false accusations about highly regarded government agencies to be treasonous behavior.
Climate breakdown is a world problem. You are thinking local (the USA). You see climate change as a political theme. A thing that extremists on the left side use to make money.
This is not the case. Science is not leftwing or right wing, science is objective and self correcting. When there is one scientist saying climate change is true and a 100 tell otherwise that climate change is a hoax. I will believe the 100 scientists instead of one and accept that climate change is a hoax.
But it is the other way around. 100 against 2 of the scientists say that climate change is true. Of course you can quote the 2 scientists a thousand times but it will not make it true,
Seen from a worldwide perspective you are in a very small minority to say that climate change is not real.
The fact that humans are the main cause of global warming is settled science. Everyone knows that. The only people who suggest it's not are armchair scientists with delusions of grandeur, quacks, and gas and oil industry shills.
I am not saying humans do not have an impact. The debate is always to what extent and how best to mitigate it.
Here is where the science fall short.
Science has demonstrated the greenhouse effect as a scenario.
As more CO2 gas is put into the upper atmosphere, the earth retains more heat then it radiates. Over time, this creates a warming of the earth.
That is the theory.
Next, some scientists, takes it one level higher and make dire predictions as to the result, if we humans don’t drastically change our behavior, namely burning of fossil fuel...
Now, we are at a point where, CO2 levels has risen past 400ppm.
However, the dire predictions made about global warming, and increased sea level and increased hurricanes did not come to fruition.
Back to the drawing board?Humans are the main contributing factor. That is settled science. And you are not more knowledgeable on this subject than the scientific community represented by most of the world's national science academies, so stop pretending to be. I believe the scientific community, not you, or any of the quacks or gas and oil industry shills you pay attention to.
The climate change fear mongers say antarctic ice is decreasing and ocean levels will rise rise and drown LA. Saw a picture today from them, with people walking calf deep through water; the inference is that it has already risen 2' or more, even though we all know better.
The scientific community (NASA) says antarctic ice is growing.
"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
Which do you believe?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na … han-lossesYou're quoting data from ten to twenty-five years ago to make your case? Try coming back into this decade....
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Well, let's see. From your link:
"Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period."
From NASA: "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." (Notice that this data is from 2015, not 25 years ago as you claim. Data from 25 years ago could not cover 2003 to 2008).
Now, the two do not appear to be talking about the same thing; one is the ocean ice sheets and one is the total amount of ice on the continent. Can we conclude that it is shrinking in one area and growing (beyond the shrinkage) in another? It seems so...and gives the lie to the thought that the ice is going away. I will say, however, that the statement "The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade." appears to be true, for tripling zero remains zero.
But however you look at it, NASA is saying that the amount of ice in Antarctica is growing, not shrinking. Not unexpected; none of the dire predictions from past climate change horror stories have come true yet, in spite of being long overdue. There appears to be more to the question than the amount of CO2 in the air.
The science is settled. Humans are the main contributor to global warming. People who deny it belong to the ranks of flat earthers and other conspiracy theory loons.
As for your link. I'll do you a deal. I'll read your NASA story when you read the countless number of links that every sensible person on this forum has posted demonstrating that your climate denial is nonsense. Until then, I don't believe you are someone that facts matter a great deal to.LOL If I don't read "countless" links that you like (posted by "sensible" people) you won't read the top scientific opinions in the country. Until then you will continue to believe a lie.
And that's how ignorance grows, isn't it?Would you like me to provide a link to where NASA suggests human activity is the main contributory factor to global warming? Of course not, because you're not interested in facts or reason of any kind. If I posted that link, NASA - the same organisation you describe as having "top scientific opinions in the country" - would suddenly become a biased liberal organisation involved in a global conspiracy to deceive the public.
There is no discussion to be had here, because the science is settled. Only fools, quacks and gas and oil industry shills pretend it's not. Just like only fools, quacks and tobacco industry shills pretended cigarettes don't cause cancer, even though the global scientific community said they do.
So I'll consider your views on "ignorance" to be valid when you stop presenting the issue of climate change as some great unsettled scientific question. Smoking causes cancer wilderness, and human activity is the main contributor to global warming. Denying those facts will not stop the harm both can do, it can only increase the severity.What is causing global warming? a little bit of methane from cow farts? the little bit of jet emissions as airlines transport the public and the rich fly across the world to their various personal destinations? car emissions from the small little towns and cities of the world? smoke and emissions from little tiny factories, as observed from inside a jet as it flies over.
People are as small as ants. Why don't we realize this? Well, ants probably don't see themselves as tiny either. Maybe they are giving out some sort of emission which is bad for the earth! Yes? No? In the same way, what PEOPLE do is very insignificant in the grand scale of the earth and universe.
The theory of global warming was invented in the 70's by some mad JPL scientist who published his so called findings, facts and figures ... and the world has been running with it ever since.
Internet source: "Contribution of natural factors and human activities to radiative forcing of climate change: Radiative forcing values are for the year 2005, relative to the pre-industrial era The contribution of solar irradiance to radiative forcing is 5% the value of the combined radiative forcing due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
However: "Habibullo Abdussamatov (2004), head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, has argued that the sun is responsible for recently observed climate change. Journalists for news sources canada.com, National Geographic News and LiveScience reported on the story of warming on Mars. In these articles, Abdussamatov was quoted. He stated that warming on Mars was evidence that global warming on Earth was being caused by changes in the sun.I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.
And cherry-picked opposing opinions mean nothing relative to the massive body of global research that proves human activity is the main cause of recent global warming.
And here's an excerpt from a statement by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee published in over 400 publications in 1953. Does it sound familiar?
"Recent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings . . . eminent doctors and research scientists have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments. Distinguished authorities point out:
1. That medical research of recent years indicated many possible causes of lung cancer.
2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes,
4. That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to anyone of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists
In charge of the research activities of the Committee will be a scientist of unimpeachable integrity and national repute. "
http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_web … try_01.jpg
Shall we all start smoking 20 a day now?
As I said, only fools, quacks and gas and oil industry shills pretend climate change is not settled science. Just as fools, quacks and tobacco industry shills pretended smoking doesn't cause cancer. I'll leave you to decide which of these categories you fall into.It's interesting that ants are producing more emissions in a few days than all the active volcanoes on the planet do in a year.
Don, don’t be a lemming. If you study your history, the world has been mislead by scientists and so called “experts” of their times, until they were proven wrong...in some cases it took decades.
Global warming will turn out to be another one of those fiascos that scientists and extremists over sold and later will have to eat their words.
The extreme weather being used to justify or prove global warming is exactly what will bring them down.
The planet had always had extreme weather. Go back 200 years in our own history and you will find plenty evidence of extreme drought, flood, fires and hurricanes and tornadoes...
The current weather pattern is within statistical norm.
My predictions about AOC has unfortunately come true...
Here latest antics in the Hall of Congress...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/aoc-believes … ITcVUP3wt9
She has an ECONOMICS degree from Boston University, Jack!
That is even more disturbing. What are they teaching her at Boston U.?
She can't do basic math. What does she deserve, respect?
According to her wikipedia page -
Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007,[16] where she won second prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiology research project on the effect of antioxidants on C. elegans' lifespan.[17] As a result, the International Astronomical Union named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.[18][19] In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. She later became the LDZ Secretary of State while she attended Boston University. Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship.[20]I truly want to help her. She is from my home town of Yorktown Hts. NY.
She is bright and accomplished and yet have so much more to learn...
I hate to see her go down the wrong path.
By the way, my youngest son is also a graduate of Yorktown High school in 2009. They may even know each other...
I just don’t want to see her fail.My advice to her is not to do any more interviews...
Learn to walk before running...
No condescension intended. Just looking out for her...
I truly hope she succeeds.I'm sure she'd want the benefit of your vast personal political experience, Jack. What office were you elected to now?
Life experiences as a father of 3, and a Master degree from NYU, a volunteer Legue of Women’s voters, a volunteer at the Westchester Archives, and 28 years working for IBM and traveled extensively all over the world...
And following our country politics for 40 plus years. My first election for president was Nixon in 1972.You mean like we all benefit from yours?
She won't. Many Democrats in Congress are moderate, particularly the establishmentarian Democrats. Some feel that she is revolutionary.
Just curious, did you make the same thread about Trump when he was elected?
Here is my article on Trump from Nov. 2016, right after the election.
“hubpages.com/politics/My-Reservations-on-the-Trump-Presidency”
No, because I wrote a whole article on Trump...
Comparing a 70 year old man who owns over 500 businesses to a young woman who can't do math? Your equivocation doth butter no parsnips, me lady.
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago
0I think she will have plenty of mentors right there in Washington. Plus, she has already demonstrated her intelligence and competence in politics by unseating a seasoned incumbent. If she retains her innate political instincts while learning from the political veterans, she will do just fine.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a blithering idiot. To deny it is to deny reality. She has accomplished nothing and as a congresswoman...I predict she will continue to accomplish nothing.
She won a primary against a very unpopular Democrat and was unopposed in the general election. Not that big of an accomplishment.
Representative-elect Ocasio-Cortez said, "we need to invent technology that's never even been invented yet."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasi … ogy-quote/
She said this. Gee...is she queen of stating the obvious or what?
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs,” said Ocasio-Cortez in an interview on PBS”
Someone needs to talk to her about how unemployment is calculated. Wow...such an economic genius.
And on Israel
When Hoover asked Ocasio-Cortez to clarify her position after pointing out the term “occupation” was controversial, Ocasio-Cortez, who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in economics and international relations from Boston University, struggled to explain her comment.
“I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You know, for me, I’m a firm believer in finding a two-state solution on this issue.”
It gets better.
“I think that politically, this upper-middle class is probably more moderate, but that upper-middle-class doesn’t exist anymore in America, and thanks to the continued deregulation of Wall Street, thanks to the continued gutting of working- and middle-class people, we need stronger champions.”
However, both the Urban Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute have presented evidence showing the upper-middle-class is actually growing.
This upper-middle-class that does not exist anymore is more politically moderate? Wow...she really made a great attempt at making sense here.
“People often say, how are you gonna pay for it? And I find the question so puzzling because, how do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent? How do you pay for—you just pay for it.”
You just pay for it. Beautiful brilliant explanation. Boston University should take away her degree for economics.
“What we had was an existential threat in the context of a war. We had a direct existential threat with another nation, this time it was Nazi Germany, and the Axis, who explicitly made the United States as an enemy, as an enemy. And what we did was that we chose to mobilize our entire economy and industrialized our entire economy and we put hundreds if not millions of people to work in defending our shores and defending this country. We have to do the same thing in order to get us to 100 percent renewable energy, and that’s just the truth of it. “
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/06/ … -new-star/
And...she is a gifted historian. Yes, we must fight the Hitler of Climate change because climate change is run by a dictator who wants to take over the world. She should take this comedy show on the road.
As long as she is in Congress, Maxine Waters and Hank Johnson are no longer the stupidest people to serve in Congress. She is a joke. She is in over her head. She is so clueless...she has no idea how clueless she is.
Wow. That's quite the dissertation. You righties are really triggered by the existence of this newly elected congresswoman who hasn't yet done a thing. You'd think she was running for President or something the way y'all are going after her. What are you afraid of? It is clear you ARE afraid or you wouldn't be giving her the time of day.
This is very interesting and quite amusing.
No, not afraid. Just amazed at how Democrats can elect someone with such colossal ignorance and heap so much praise on them. Of course, Maxine Waters and Hank Johnson are also Democrats. So, maybe we shouldn't be surprised. You are right, she hasn't done a thing and with her lack of knowledge, she won't do anything but provide comedy for the next two years.
Don't worry Readmikenow, many of the old line Democrats will either ignore or dismiss her for the joke she is...……….
"Just amazed at how Democrats can elect someone with such colossal ignorance and heap so much praise on them."
[Laughs hysterically at the unintentional irony of this statement]Ah, you got here faster!
Some people just... SMH
Just wondering if I post a list of all the idiotic things Trump has ever said and done, would that change your opinion of him?
No, because I explained that already...
He is doing it on purpose...for the most part...
He is exposing the media for the fake they are...
He is making them go bananas...
Hence the term Trump Derangement Syndrome.
He is using this to manipulate the media.
All this is well known and yet they still don’t get him.
They have been down this road since 2015...
Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
This is the main stream media today.Right. Because you judge Trump to be a wily media guru and Cortez to be uneducated, lacking in knowledge and naive.
PrettyPanther - isn't the sexism being displayed here just shocking?
Yes and no. It's always shocking, but at the same time it's also not surprising.
Well, I guess I am just clueless in your eyes...
What the point of discussing this any further...
You are attributing motives to me where none exist.
I was just trying to help her but c’est la vie...
You can lead a houprse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Have a great day and enjoy the weekend.
I am signing out.You have a great day, too, Jack. To be clear, I believe your bias is unconscious and that you do mean well.
I was really just addressing Pretty Panther and, actually, I wasn't referring to you at all, Jack. Whatever bias you may have, it's more subtle and I would agree with PrettyPanther that you mean well.
Yes, I agree Jack means well, but his sources for facts needs to be improved.
So a woman who says stupid things is an idiot but a man who says stupid things is a genius?
Interesting.It would laughable if it weren't so sad.
Here's a challenge. Post as many stupid things you can find said by Ms. Cortez and I will post three said by President Trump. Would that mean that Trump is 3x as stupid? Equally stupid?And a Trump supporter calling Nancy Pelosi "creepy"? Does she lurk in dressing rooms hoping to catch a glimpse of underage girls in various stages of undress?
Oh, wait, that's our President who did that.No, it would mean he's a triple genius. Get with the program! Lol
He’s a man, a Republican, and not a millennial. It’s the trifecta. Instant genius status.
And the more idiotic things he says, the smarter he becomes! Poor Ms. Cortez, the more dumb stuff she says, the stupider she gets. If only she had a penis.
Cortez does have an economics degree; however, unfortunately, she is naively delusional. I knew better than that when I was 14 years old. Cortez is part of the new Democratic, Socialistic machine, no more no less.
As you are fond of saying, GM....A++++++++++
Ocasio-Cortez was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, of which she is a member. Not surprising.When I heard her speak, my first reaction was to strangle her. I detest people of her ilk. I am so sick of my tax monies going to inane social programs which are bilking the middle class. C'mon, what happened to the concepts of accountability & responsibility. The Democratic Party presently isn't the Democratic Party by its definition but a Leftist Party of radicals who want freebies-free housing, free health care, free college, etc. Cortez like Obumbler wants the government to take care of all our socioeconomic & human needs. Oh boy, don't get me STARTED on this socialist crap! Obama started it! This is making me think of a new thread...….
I'm all for helping the poor, but not the way Socialists claim it should be done. One has to wonder whether Cortez is nothing more than an opportunist, especially given the lies she told about her upbringing. She's as fake as they come.
Exactly, the poor needs to be educated & given viable jobs. They also must be inculcated in the premise that they are powerful & own their lives. Of course, Cortez is fake. She is using this socialist mumbo-jumbo to get on the liberal-socialist bandwagon. She is an opportunist just like all these latte socialists.
Have you notice Savvy that many of these so-called socialists come from upper middle class backgrounds? I have encountered such socialists. They are living in a dream world. Those who were born poor by contrast don't want socialism-they want to succeed in the capitalist system. They want the money & are willing to work smart to achieve their dreams. I never heard of a poor person wanting socialism, they want to thrive in capitalism.
Perhaps you should read her Wikipedia page. She's young, but has accomplished a lot. That doesn't mean she should speak out so much before she learns the ropes better. An old man next door to me also called her a "nitwit." Just because she's a young woman you have policy disagreements with, doesn't mean you have to be a misogynist.
Her opponent didn't even bother to campaign, I guess he was so mobbed up he thought the old boys would do what they usually do and give him a position he did no good in anyway. She needs time and more experience. I think her passion and courage will serve her well.Perhaps Cortez paid others to complete her assignments and tests for her. The woman knows nothing about basic economics. How can someone who is supposedly that smart be so dumb? It boggles the mind.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ … sic-facts/Ouch, loving this! You are right Savvy, Cortez knows nothing about economics. An economist doesn't speak like she speaks. It goes to show you what college is teaching these days?! I knew better than Cortez in high school. Cortez isn't smart-NOT BY A LONG SHOT! The mindless sheeple is just falling for her disgusting ruminations!
Well Savvy, Tallioni, & others, w/Cortez, the Democratic Party is going to hang itself. As a result of delusional people like Cortez, the Republicans will win again in 2020. I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO.
And yet, I predict she will be elected President in 2024.
Sharlee, HELL NO to the reply that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be President in 2024. She isn't politically experienced enough. She is far too radical( I am a Liberal Democrat by the way) & outlandish for most of the American public who can be classified as moderate. She WON'T be president in 2024 if ever!
Many people are becoming aware that the Democratic Party has veered so far left. There are moderate & traditional Kennedy Democrats who see Ocasio-Cortez for what she is. For an educated woman, she is so clueless. She is also emotionally & intellectually immature. I knew better than she did when I was in junior high school. Ocasio- Cortez is the quintessential definition of immaturity in action. No, Ocasio-Cortez won't be president in 2024. If the Democratic Party continues on its road, a strong Republican will be president because people want someone who can guide the country on its proper course. If not a Republican but a moderate or more traditional Democrat will be president in 2024. The millennial generation will hopefully be exposed to the real world & learn some maturity.
Cortez is merely a delusional young woman. She is of the Bernie Sanders school. She believes that should be an equality of resources for everyone. Well, it doesn't go like that. People have to earn their resources. There is such a thing as working for what one wants. Furthermore, if one wants resources, one has to PAY FOR THEM, pure & simple. This society has enough freebies through welfare & other inane social programs. These things result in the economic devouring of the middle class. The middle class has to fight back. Cortez is going to fail, she is too radical for many Democrats. Sadly, because of the present stance of the Democratic Party, many moderate & traditional Democrats are going to vote or TURN...……..Republican!
She is the gift that keeps giving. One of her latest.
"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
What in the hell does that even mean?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … 1g_a-0co2cMike, I think you know what it means as well as I do. Your link only served to reinforce that point.
How about this. It is wrong to molest children. But, the actual statement was "Catholic priests acknowledge that is is wrong to molest children."
Surely you don't have a problem seeing the validity of both statements. Or do you see the first statement as false because it did not include "Catholic priests?"
GANo GA, I have no idea what it means. I have no idea how your analogy applies to this at all. I don't think either statement has validity. We are not talking about Catholic priests. We are talking about an elected representative making idiotic statements at the level of Maxine Waters and Hank Johnson. She says "And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy. And then I restate what my point was. But it's not the same thing as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all."
Huh? This is idiotic on many different levels.
You elect clowns you get a circus..
Let’s try another one to help you through this, Mike. I’ll use the precisely/factually part rather than the semantics.
Someone is arguing that burglary is on the rise. They say that over the past year 48,000 burglaries have taken place whereas in previous years it was only 20,000. The actual statistic is 46,897 burglaries have taken place this year and 23,486 had taken place in previous years. People choose to focus on the fact that this someone got the exact figures wrong (and is sooooo dumb because they don’t even know the real numbers!!!!!) while completely failing to acknowledge the point about burglaries which is certainly more significant a problem than misquoting exact statistics that still support the statement.Let me help YOUu work through this situation.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot. Her public statements and behavior have shown just how clueless she is when it comes to her job.
Should you deny this, it says something very negative about you.
Here's her latest sample of idiocy,
"immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. illegally are "more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … m_out.html
Huh? This is about as stupid as it gets. I suppose the concept of a difference between legal and illegal immigrants is a bit beyond her. If you see any merit in her statements, I will have to pity you.We are pals, part of being a pal is being able to discuss things with on another and keep going. You should say what my relatives...who are liberal democrats and I say to one another. Watched President Donald Trump's address wearing a MAGA hat while my cousin had a cut out face of Nancy Pelosi. We don't take things that serious.
Now
Do you really think the things said by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are something other than ridiculous? What do you really think of her? You're from Canada...how would a Canadian view her?
Mike, I think the meaning of her statement is pretty easy to figure out.
America has always been a place where immigrants can go. It is a place where hope exists, a beacon of light for oppressed people all over the world. Americans have always welcomed the oppressed here. To risk your life to come here, to leave your home, to put your life in the hands of America, is the history of our country.
Are people who seek to come here legally or illegally, to be treated as immoral and villains or as people trying to better their lives because they have nothing. They are risking it because they have nothing and are hoping that the historical generosity of America to give them a chance will win the day.
Isn't that one reason why America is so great? We're the place people go with hope.
Pit that against the isolationist sentiment that those who seek refuge (go see what the Statue of Liberty says) should be turned away. So, who is more American? Those who seek to come here, work hard, and change their lives? Or those who want to slam the door in their faces?
Go read a Bible. Are you a Christian? Where's your Christianity?
Just sayin'.So why not open your home to illegals?
Why have locks on your doors and cars?
The statue of liberty was not about having anyone and everyone who wants to come here...
That is what legal immigration is.
We decide who gets to come here.
We decide how many we can take in any given year.
We check them and make sure they are not sick or have criminal records...
Those are how it suppose to work.
It is the sovereignty of a nation.
We receive over 1million legal immigrants every year from all over the world.
We are still a nation of immigrants.
For you to lump illegals and legal immigrants in one pot is what is disingenuous.I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's not that hard to understand what she means.
I believe in legal immigration and enforcing our laws.
I really
can focus now on the security of building a wall on the borders from that link.
Sweet! I get around online, and I hadn't seen that one yet!
You guys must really be threatened by this young lady.
That's rich coming from you.
What have you been doing in this thread? Oh, right.I was referring to Trump...
They are not the same situation.
In the case of Cortez, she does not know what she is saying or proposing...
She makes mistakes and shows here ignorance on some topics...
In Trump’s case, I have written about this in the past and just summarize here.
He say things that are meant to raise eyebrows...on purpose to distract the media.
They will cover his words wall to wall hoping to take him down.
He is playing them like a violin.
During the primaries, he creates controversy and suck up all the oxygen, so the other candidates went by the wayside.
It was his strategy.
The media is falling for this ploy. They are stuck on TDS.
You think they would have learned it by now.
Instead, they fall for it time and again.
Trump is a master at media manipulation.
However, he gets thing done. He has accomplished more than anyone exapected in his first two years in office.
Can Cortez make that claim?
I don’t see your point..
What am I missing?
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
Notice how no specifics are ever given about Pelosi's lying, manipulating, or why she's so creepy. And now a new charge, "stifling meaningful involvement."
Specifics might lend credibility to these statements or at least show you have legitimate reasons for saying she is "creepy' or that there "isn't a truthful bone in Pelosi's body."
I'd genuinely like to know what she's done to warrant these descriptors. I mean, I and other Trump detractors never had trouble providing the specific Trump behaviors or statements causing our disdainNancy Pelosi was the first ever woman Speaker of the House, and she's effective.She knows exactly what she's doing, and has years of experience to back it all up. Now she's been attacked with ageism, when many of the elderly men in the Senate don't even believe in Civil Rights or Women's Rights yet.
It's the same old double standard. A successful man is heaped with praise, no matter how low he goes, and a successful woman is a bitch or stupid. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is young, with Bambi eyes, and yet older men seem to be trembling in fear of her. I can't believe the level of sexism and insecurity I'm seeing in this thread. She's new to this job, and needs time to learn the ropes. She's passionate and has to learn not to speak out unless she's sure what she's saying. We have a President who can't even do that.
A woman has to be two or three times as good and educated to even compete with many of these outdated and dumb men who have had no new ideas for decades. This is really disturbing.
Trump already agreed to a deal, and turned it down because of talk show hosts. Then he shut down the government and is hurting millions of people. How dumb is that, and why should he be rewarded with anything? He can still go back and sign that deal.Someone needs to explain to him exactly who is being hurt by his hasty decision, as he doesn't understand how regular people live, or the effects of what he did.Jean, since the Pelosi haters won't or can't explain the roots of their hatred, one has to wonder, eh? At least us Trump detractors are willing to explain what he has said and done to elicit our disdain.
As for explaining to Trump how he is hurting regular people, the evidence suggests that Trump only cares about himself and his delicate ego so I doubt the suffering of others would have any effect on him.Trump has never wanted for anything. There's no way he can identify with those suffering because he's an egomaniac with no conscience. But as I often say, "Time wounds all heels."
I hope it's especially apt in Donnie's case!
Its absolutely NOT, in my opinion, But of course, the enlighten aliens would agree with you and tell you that you are Exactly Right!
Not only the aliens Kat!, enlightened humans as well.
Pretty Panther,
It's important for the Resistance to speak out! Trump is in a stew of his own making, and already said he'd own it the first day. Now, of course, he and Fox and Friends want to blame the D's. As usual.
It is a great saying Randy, and so true!
Yes, Conway and Trump are especially known for using "alternative facts."
But wait Aime, I think there can be instances where someone gets the exact facts wrong but can still be morally right.
For support, I point to my first comment in this thread.
And since I am always right. I must be right this time too! So, no alternative facts are necessary.
But, don't jump to conclusions. I do not support her philosophy.
GA
Wasn't that exactly how the war in Iraq worked? Facts were wrong, but it was morally correct?
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
Not willing to explain the specifics of Pelosi's behavior or words to demonstrate why you think Pelosi is creepy or why she doesn't have a truthful bone in her body?
Interesting.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/342 … ost4055229 Another not-so-well-thought out meme you stole from others, eh Onus? Brilliant!
It's so sad you are terribly afraid of a girl, but not surprising at all.Afraid? Goodness No. I think Stupid Spice is perfect for her party.
Sure you are, Onus. Remember how you try so hard to hide your identity here? Anyone so frightened as to do that would really be afraid of strong willed girls.
And Silly Putty is ideal for yours.Still just itching to know who I am. This is starting to turn into an obsession.
And you obviously have no idea what my "Stupid Spice" reference was.I already know who and what you are, Onus.
Just keep posting your cute little memes and don't be frightened of me.
That doesn't sound threatening at all. What's your plan? You gonna dox me into silence?
Of course not, Onus. You're living proof of what Trump represents. Keep on posting your sweet little memes if it makes your day better.
Use your imagination, Onus. Oh that's right, you don't have any. You usually go to your meme mine and use someone else's imagination.
As I said earlier, whatever rocks your boat.
Wow, liberals take notice.
According to your poster child for brilliance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the world could end in 12 years.
So, I hope all of your retirement planning and end of life arrangements are made because according to this jewel of knowledge of wisdom, 12 years is all we have left.
Frankly, from now on I refuse to diet, I'm taking social security as early as possible, hey, we only have 12 years left...let's make the best of it! I'm going to the Ukraine for awhile.
I don't know who is more stupid, her or the people who think she says something worth hearing.
She is such a joke.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … nored.htmlI'm re-writing my will, leaving all $96.48 to our friends and neighbors, the Martians.
Wilderness, hey, only having the entire world over in twelve years I have to ask myself...who would I leave my money to? Everybody will be gone. If my offspring hears about this they will be hitting up immediately for their inheritance and anything I planned to leave them. They also only have twelve years left.
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
You righties are elevating her to star status. Highly amusing.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to Stephen Colbert: I give zero f*cks 
A box of my shaved hair is of more value than her best thinking.So much energy spent on attacking this young woman who has yet to do anything except win.
She is uniquely stupid. She is so stupid she doesn't know how stupid she is and THAT is how stupid Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is.
So, how are you going to spend your last 12 years of the world? Just asking.And it says a lot about the people who voted for her. There has never once been a socialist nation which did not crumble into the dust. There never will be either.
I suspect 5 years from now we will have all forgot her name, or who she was.The people who voted for her were in a district where, like she, they were all people of color. Her opponent, an older white man who ran the district for years, didn't even bother to campaign. At least she did, and had a message that resonated with the people she will represent. She doesn't represent you, or me, or others who live in other states and districts.
Younger people do thrown around the word "socialism" in a casual way, but it's not because they want to get away from a democracy. They want to get away from 1% of 1% of the people holding all the wealth, and supporting things like hiring scientists that are paid well to pretend climate change doesn't exist, lie about how people whose background isn't European are all "aliens", things like that.
I work with a lot of young people. They want a fairer system, and we have strayed far from the Democratic Republic we were supposed to be. The Electoral college gives isolated areas a bigger voice than heavily populated ones, like where Cortez comes from. The population there is bigger in that little area of NY than in some western states. Plus America is a fairly new country, we haven't completely found our way yet.
She represents people who are mostly very poor, and ignored. But she did win. Why are all these men so upset about it? Trump says stupid things everyday.LOL. Laughing at an idiot is different from being upset.
Yes, we do often laugh at the idiot Trump! He earns it several times daily with his farcical lies.
Jean,
The difference is we know what Trump say is for show and the media...where as Cortez actually believe in what she say...Wow, you just admitted you knowingly support a lying com man.
And you're bashing someone who is truthfully stating her beliefs.
Trump supporters are why I'm worried for the future of our country. Talk about warped values.The political reality of a biased media created a Trump figure.
I don’t support his exaggerations but I understood why he does it unlike the media who goes insane with his every utter or tweets.
Cortez on the otherhand exihbit a naivety l and almost child like personna that is shocking for a member of Congress. The media just play along propping her up. Contrast that with how they treated Sarah Palin ..."The political reality of a biased media created a Trump figure."
Nope, sorry, Trump supporters cannot abdicate responsibility for elevating Trump to President, nor can you let Trump off the hook for being the lying con man he chooses to be. Trump figure? WTH do you mean by that??
Without you all to the cheer his stupid border wall, and ignore your own eyes and ears, and to walk into a voting booth and put a mark beside his name, Trump would still be nothing but a blowhard reality TV star.Here is history lesson according to jack lee...
1. Obama was president from 2008-2016.
2. In 2 election cycles, we had John McCain and Mitt Romney running against him...
3. With media support, both were defeated...even though Obama had a very thin resume, a terrible first term as President, lost the majority of the House and later the Senate...
4. 2016 election cycle had 17 GOP candidates. None could beat Trump, a new comer, with no political experience and an outsider...
5. Trump won by being the media manipulator that he is, sucking up all the oxygen, and saying controversial things and tweets...
The media went insane trying to stop him, calling him everything under the sun including the old try and true charge of a racist.
None worked.
6. Trump won and best out the experienced corrupt Hillary. It turned out, she was a terrible campaigner. She had to rig the primary to best out Bernie Sanders.
7. The failures of Obama in policies, combined with a biased and dishonest media brought on the scene in 2016, a Trump figure.
The rest is history.
It is my contention that had Trump not jumped into the race, Hillary would be president today.
The other 16 GOP candidates had no chance to beat Hillary especially with the media behind her all the way. They would all fold like a cheap camera...Lol, you forgot to mention that enough people had to put a mark beside his name for him to be elected. Trump voters chose him. They either were taken in by a lying com man or intentionally elected a lying com man. More Republican primary voters chose him than any other Republican candidate. Of course, the majority of general election voters were not taken in and rejected the lying com man.
You Trump supporters sure don't like to own your choice.I didn’t include that because it was obvious.
By the way, some of those that voted for him were Democrats who were disgusted by Hillary.
That was how he got elected and winning the electoral votes.
Many of whom did not tell anyone, for fear of retributions...
That is why the polls got it all wrong.
"The Electoral college gives isolated areas a bigger voice than heavily populated ones, like where Cortez comes from. "
That is not correct Jean. Even stripped of the Cortea part--"Electoral college gives isolated areas a bigger voice than heavily populated ones"-- it is not correct.
GAIt's not wrong, at least I don't think so. The math to figure out how many electoral votes each state gets is the number of seats the state has in the House of Representatives plus the 2 seats they get in the Senate.. Large, rural states get the same amount of Senators as small, over populated, suburban or urban ones.
The advantage the 2 Senate seats gives each state is the reason why some of the less populated states get as many electoral votes as they do. And I was talking about New York State here, as opposed to a large state like, say, WY, where the population is very low. NY is comprised of all the boroughs, Manhattan, and is a very large state in itself. I think it's time we revisited this and made it all more proportionate to our times and population changes.I completely disagree. The electoral college is one of the things that holds this country together. We will see large problems if the large city states rule and the smaller more rural areas feel their voices aren't represented or heard. And, let's not even think about the problems created.
The only way such would be possible is is if we gutted the federal government, stripped taxes down to essential government functions of national defense and the states had almost complete autonomy.You are absolutely right. Without the electoral college, our country would split.
I agree also. Don’t forget, part of the immigration problem is we have many undocumented immigrants added to large cities like NY and LA...which distorts the population of NY state and CA...
The census will show this. In a way, these state are getting more congressional seats due to these imbalance. It is also believed that the reason Hillary won the popular vote by a few million is mostly due to these few blue states where these immigrants are. Even though they are not allowed to vote, we just don’t know how many did vote. We don’t have voter ID laws...guest who does not want them?In addition, if we don’t do something to stop this flow of immigrants, we will have a permenant under class who will vote Democrats for years to come.
Here is my prediction. If all the undocumented immigrants were removed from our country, est. of 30 million or more, our country would be more conservative.
One more hypothetical, if all these immigrants would start to vote GOP, guess who will be the first to call a stop to this migrations? Nancy Pelosi would be screaming for a wall and probably build it herself.
Hi Jean,
Here is why I think the statement was wrong. First, since all states get the 2 Senator electors I think that is a non-factor regarding your point. Everyone gets the same thing, so there is no imbalance.
If the less populous states didn't get those two Senate electors, than neither would the more populous states get theirs - so that part is a wash.
As you described, the number of electors is essentially determined by state population, (via Representative apportionment), so I fail to see how that gives a less populous state a bigger voice than heavily populated ones.
If your logic was true, then that would also say that less populous states have a "bigger voice" in House vote results than more populous states. Do you think they do?
Contrary to having a "bigger voice" I think those two Senator electors ensure that a state has at least some "voice." (I also think I remember? that being one of the intentions of having the two Senator electors -- even small rural states would have at least some worth/impact/say in the overall picture)
Am I missing something in your explanation? Because I think the Senate point is such an obvious wash--all states get the same, or all states lose the same--I don't understand how you see that as an advantage.
GAYou are absolutely right.
Our Constitution was set up this way specifically to adddress the divided power between large and small states. Otherwise, those colonies would not have ratify the Constitution in the first place.Was the point not that small states have a larger voice relative to population size than larger states? Given that "larger" refers to size of the population rather than physical size of the state?
If so, then Jean is entirely correct, for the "people per vote" is smaller in smaller states, giving rise to that "larger" vote term. That was done intentionally, as Jacklee says, in order to include states with fewer people in the governing body of Congress, and in the ability to have a say in electing a president.Thank you Dan. That's what I was trying to say.
I've had a bad sinus infection I can't get rid of, and my brain isn't working at this point, I am too uncomfortable.
I understand the importance of the Electoral College, I just don't know if it's the best way anymore. But I have no ideas for a different way.Well then, considering that clarification, it looks like I was the one that was "incorrect." ;-)
GAI didn't say it clearly. It doesn't matter, the EC was begun so each state would have an equal voice. Large states with small populations have the same voice as little states with huge populations. It's all good.
I can't help myself Jean.
You are almost right. It's purpose, (the EC), wasn't to make their votes equal--you can't make the voting power of Wyoming equal to that of New York--it was to add a bit of balance so the small population states wouldn't be completely ignored. Which we both know, (you've heard the election term: Fly-over states), would be the case without the worth of electoral votes.
Anyway, I understand your point. And as applied to the power of an individual's vote, you were right.
GARight, not equal, more balanced. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone.
I am struggling to understand your opening statement Wilderness, but I think the answer is yes, both Jean and I are referring to population size, not state size. But also that the context concerns a State's voting voice, not a "people per vote" voice.
Which I think means that even though your numerical proof that, without context, her statement was true, within the context of the statement, it is incorrect. Wyoming does not have a bigger voice than New York.
This has turned into a semantics thing hasn't it?
GAPerhaps it has (become semantics). But when I see this claim it does not refer to the state as a whole, but to the people of that state. And the people of a small state most definitely have a larger voice in the EC, per person, than those of a larger state.
That there are (IMO) valid reasons for that does not change anything.
Watching Mexico not pay for a wall that won't be built. How else?
“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " Ocasio-Cortez asked Coates.
Her comments are in reference to a United Nations-backed climate report, published late last year, that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years.And you believe the UN IPCC which is a political organization...
Did I said that?
Btw, you must really love tin foil hats, eh?
What about the homeless in NYC subways?
What is AOC’s solution?
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/21 … over-cars/Did you put the onus for solving that issue on the previous long-term occupant of her office, or are old white guys excused?
No, but if you read my hub from 2015, you would know I clearly place the blame on Mayor Bill DeBlasio of NYC, a white male progressive socialist, and the New Yorkers who voted for him not once but twice. You get the government you deserve.
But you asked what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is going to do about it. Did you ask her predecessor during the many years he was in office?
Ok, I see your point. However, her predecessor was not in the news day in day out like AOC was he?
He was hiding under his desk,,,
He was not saying tax the rich at 70%, or the world will end in 12 years? Or some other freebee...My point in posting the question is not to expect an answer but to point out the insanity of this women...
She has not fixed the problem of her own city and yet have high and mighty ideas to fix the world...come on, you got to see the irony of this.
Why are you defending her? What does she know that you and I don’t know?
BTW, this applies to all those hubbers here in this forum...why are you defending her? Or better word, standing up for her?Not standing up for her, just illuminating the absurdity and randomness of criticisms coming from mostly male righties who obviously feel threatened by a woman who has yet to do anything except win.
It is very interesting.Why do you have to bring gender and race into these discussions...?
That is a pattern I found with the left.
When they can’t win on ideas, they look for scapegoats...
My comments have nothing to do with her gender.
It has everything to do with her immaturity and lack of knowledge...
If you have seen my postings...my history is clear.
I have made negative comments on all sides, including Republicans...
Can you make the same claim?Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Hilarious. What is a strength for Trump is a weakness for Ocasio-Cortez. Immaturity, lack of knowledge...
Trump is a genius and his stupid comments are evidence of his superior intellect. Don't you get it? lol
When particular intellectual and behavioral characteristics in a man are strengths while the same characteristics in a woman are a weakness, that is the VERY definition of sexism.
That is not what happen here and you are grasping at straws...
If a man has the same background and age and experience as AOC, I would make rhe same comments.
This is getting very old.
If people disagree with progressive policies of Obama and criticize him, we are racist.
If people disagree with Hillary for her progresssive policies, we are sexist...
Where does this end?
Why can’t we just debate on the merits of the issues? and be color blind.That is not what happen here and you are grasping at straws...
If a man has the same background and age and experience as AOC, I would make rhe same comments.
This is getting very old.
If people disagree with progressive policies of Obama and criticize him, we are racist.
If people disagree with Hillary for her progresssive policies, we are sexist...
Where does this end?
Why can’t we just debate on the merits of the issues? and be color blind and gender neutral.What issue are we debating here?
And I have never accused anyone of being sexist or racist for mere policy differences. Ever.The best description of AOC from a women -
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/18/monica … l_partner/Monica Crowley is right-wing nut job who thinks Nixon is "a good man." Why on earth would I give a hoot what she thinks of anything?
I notice you failed to identify what issue we are debating, after accusing me of calling you sexist instead of debating policy. Either identify that policy issue, or stop lying about my tactics. You and other righties are, quite hilariously, so threatened by AOC that you're devoting entire threads to bashing her while right-wing pundits are writing editorials and devoting news segments to bashing her. She hasn't even done anything except talk. You'd think she were POTUS or something for the amount of energy devoted to her.
You all are so transparent. At first it was funny, but now it's just exceedingly sad.Hate to tell you, but Monica Crowley is not a “nut job...” she is a conservative commentator, a lawyer, a writer of best selling book, was personal assistant to Nixon, after he resigned and left office...
A decent President if not for Watergate...
She has more common sense than you have in your pinky.
She would not have attacked you the way you characterized her but then again, all is on the table when dealing with strong conservative women right?
Where is your all inclusive liberal big tent?
She called it as it is with AOC...your defense of her just show how little you know about how the world works.
We are trying to help her? Before she sinks to oblivion.
Why are you adding fuel to her fire?
+100000000000000000000000000000000, thank you. Obama's policies weren't progressive but socialist in scope. Obama did nothing for this great nation. Obama was a DISASTER so to speak. He RUINED health insurance which was FINE before the OBLUMBLER wrecked it, Jack. Well, Hillary, DON'T TRUST her!
For the same reason you stand up for a lying conman, Jack. You feel entitled to question her sanity while Trump gets a pass from you. Hypocritical much?
+100000000000. Jack, history teaches us that people believe what they want to believe. Also, if a person is liked, they will go w/this person even if that person is negative; conversely, if a person is disliked, they will attack him/her even if h/she is positive. There is NOTHING POSITIVE about Ocasio-Cortez. She is typical of the new radicalized Democratic Party, Jack.
Cortez is the outcome of the new Socialist Democratic Party which began w/Obama, pure & simple. The Democratic Party used to stand for principles & equality of opportunities but it has degenerated into a party of freebies & handouts.
And Trump is the outcome of the Tea Party's influence on the Republicans, if you want to claim Obama begun the problem for the Dems. You can't have it both ways, Grace!
Randy....I don't think Trump is at all a product of the Tea Party. In fact, that group was much more conservative than Trump. In actuality, Trump is a builder (plain and simple), who understands how to make business grow. He isn't particularly Republican or Democrat, when all is said and done. He is, in essence, pro-growth. In that respect, he is good for America. Trump has brought about record unemployment rates for minorities---and whites, for that matter. That is something Obama never could have accomplished, even if he had been in the White House for 20+ years. Obama doesn't have it in him, and was/is quite weak in this regard.
Obama never did and does not now understand business and economics. He is a mere elitist, a philosopher, if you will. I personally wish he had simply chosen to write books for liberals who believe that an "intelligent" guy must be a smart guy. Obama has no smarts in practical terms. In fact, he was an adjunct professor----not even a full-time professor, who, because of his charisma, managed to become president, not unlike the way charismatic Cortez has been elected to Congress.
All of that being said, I realize that Trump can be boorish, but that does not make him unfit to be president, or a product of the Tea Party.
In closing, let me say, Grace.....I like you, but I do not agree that poor people should starve if they do not manage to get an education or a good job. I was raised poor. My mother worked dreadfully hard to feed her children. Sometimes she had to rely on food stamps to supplement her income. Her health was poor, but she did the best she could even though she was ill most of the time. There is no shame in her poverty, and she is the strongest woman I have known. In this regard, you and I have some philosophical differences.I disagree he's a good builder or business man. Otherwise, he wouldn't have so many winning lawsuits against him in the past. And more on the way as his so-called-charity foundation has gone belly up and its donors sue for donating money spent for other lawsuits against his golf courses and Trumps own personal use.
The Trump Foundation was his private spending account in most cases.
Readmikenow, LOVE THE MEME. Cortez is not to be taken seriously. In the old days, she would be deemed to have a DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL disorder. She is totally divorced from reality. Cortez is an immature girl child. A mature woman wouldn't spout the inane nonsense she is spouting. I feel about Cortez the way a king cobra feels about a mongoose. I would sink my fangs into her!
I can't help but wonder about a person who says "I would sick my fangs into her" and "my first reaction was to strangle her" and then speculates about her having a "deep psychological disorder."
What has she done, exactly? Are her beliefs significantly different from Bernie Sanders' beliefs to elicit such animosity?
Just wondering.I detest Sanders for his immature socialist nonsense also!
Do you have the urge to strangle him when he talks? Sink your fangs into his neck?
Does he have a deep psychological disorder?
Just wondering.Yes. He was talking gibberish as Cortez is doing. Thank God, Sanders was never taken seriously & that he didn't win. Sanders was a joke like Cortez is currently is a joke. They are spouting socialist nonsense- free health care, free college, & all that nonsense. I am of the school of earning. If one wants something, WORK & EARN it. If one can't do these things, WELL STARVE...…………..BABY! I am of the school that nothing is or should be free. Pay for what you want or DO WITHOUT...….You can't always get what you want, especially if you can't afford it. Grownups know that if you can't afford it, SUCK IT UP & DO WITHOUT!
The lessons Cortez need to learn is to be a realistic, mature grown up. Cortez needs to stop acting like an adolescent. Her inane socialistic nonsense is futile to say the least. America is a capitalistic society & will ALWAYS remain so. Cortez is a socialist, even communist pure & simple. Her ideas are stupidly utopian. She needs to face reality & act accordingly. I wasn't that immature at twelve. I knew then that in order to succeed, one must be educationally prepared & know how to play the game. People receive minimum wage because their skills & educational levels warrant it, no more no less. If people want to earn more, get the relevant education & skill set. Stop being whiners & crybabies, JEEZ! Every time I see that &^&, I want to PUKE, seriously!
Well put. The more I read of the intellectual elitists' views, the more I believe they are disingenuous - they have an agenda in the ivory tower or government to perpetuate their views and stifle opposition views from emerging through the fog.
I just received my copy of Foreign Policy magazine, winter 2019 issue. The main article is about the list of top 100 thinkers in the last 10 years. I was shocked to find AOC on that list.
This is indicative of what is wrong with our country.
We have people elected to high office with zero resume...
How is she one of 100 top thinkers?
Yes, she made history by being elected to congress as the first youngest 29 years old female member of Congress. But, you can draw a different conclusion of what transpired.
It is related to the immigration debate.
Let me pose this question.
If we had implemented a strong border control 30 years ago, and it had worked, do you think AOC would have any chance of being elected?
The district she came from in NYC has a highly immigrant population.
My point is, perhaps, she is a result of our lack of border control, and not because she is a great thinker.Since her policies are similar to Bernie's, is Bernie also "a result of our lack of border control."
just wondering.Yes, he is along with Obama and Hillary Clinton.
And you think Trump is of great intellect?
Not that he is great intellect but he is an experienced businessman, more than AOC any day of the week.
Experienced as in several bankruptcies and many lawsuits against his companies? Once again...
In case you don’t know, many businessmen fail before they succeed. The failures is what teach some the hard lessons to do better next time.
That is called experience.In Donnie's case, he apparently didn't learn anything by his losses as an astute businessman would. He was given millions by his dad and lost it pretty quickly. He had to borrow money from his siblings to keep going and eventually lost that as well.
Finally the banks in the US got weary of his bad business decisions and set so high a percentage on loans to him he had to go to Europe to borrow money. Yeah, sounds like he's actually "The fart of the deal"!Either his supporters lack reading comprehension skills or, more likely, they are only reading right-wing rags and therefore are unaware of the extent of Donald's financial chicanery.
There is no chicanery here.
The success and failures of Trump is well documented and for all to see.
No one is claiming he is perfect.
The facts are the facts.
If you take your Trump biased filter away,
If it was any other individual, with these set of accomplishments and failures prior to his running for President, he would be considered a successful businessman.
However, it seems all the people here attacking Trump, suffers from a form of TDS to one degree or another.
Because of the name Trump, all sense of objectivity goes out the door.
Some thinks he may be a Russian spy, including our own FBI...
Some thinks he is a mafia don or have mafia connections...
Some thinks he is racist and hate people of color...
Some thinks he is reincarnation of Hitler even though his daughter is married to a Jew and converted to Judaism...
Where is the truth and objectivity here?
Just asking you to think a little...
If Trump did not run for President in 2016, would he be demonized to this degree? I think not.
Why are some people so dense when it comes to their own bias and behavior?
Do they think people won’t notice?No he wouldn't "be demonized to this degree", Jack! Because he chose to run for an office he wasn't qualified for, and also because of his kissing up to Putin and other murderous dictators, he opened himself up to scrutiny by all sorts of law enforcement investigations.
This doesn't seem to be a very intelligent move for a someone with such a notorious background does it?"If Trump did not run for President in 2016, would he be demonized to this degree?"
Of course not. Duh! He was a reality TV star like Honey Boo Boo.
As Mike stated, intelligent people shouldn't take Cortez seriously. She is an adolescent in a grown up body. If the Democratic Party continues down this road, it will be easy for the Republican Party to win in 2020. The Republican Party have a more realistic & mature assessment of American conditions that the current Democrats have. Let's call a spade...A SPADE!
Well that's true - if the Democratic Party bends THAT hard to the left, it's already on the table with a fork in it even if the Republicans run Donald Duck as their candidate.
What will be interesting to watch is how far left the cabal of Democratic candidates for president try to push their party. The further left, the worse they'll do. IMHO, choosing someone like Joe Biden is their best bet to win in 2020.Well, they already ran Scrooge McDuck and won handily - why not Donald Duck next time?
This article claims AOC and Trump successfully use the same media-savvy tactics. Still think one is a magnificent media manipulator while the other is an inept, uneducated fool?
Yes and no. If she really believe in what she proposes, then she is a fool. However, if she say these things just to get media attention, like what Trump does on many occasions, then she might be smarter than most and certainly smarter than the media that swoon over her.
Which one it is I don’t know...do you?
Mike, remember the saying give them enough rope & they will hang themselves. The Democratic Party at this party have idiots in it. They have Leftist, Radicals, Socialists, & Communists. Keep it up, Democrats, people are going to leave that party IN DROVES...………...
The Republican party seems to be the party "on the ropes" at this point, GM. They had plenty of rope with Trump to tie the noose himself.
Hopefully, Cortez will only serve TWO years. Two years are far too many then someone more intelligent will be elected & Cortez BOOTED OUT!
Yes, we all know that socialism doesn't work. Socialism is a softer form of communism. Both are extremely dangerous political philosophies. People who glorify socialism & communism have never lived under true socialism nor communism. Socialism is the gateway to communism like purgatory is the gateway to hell. Good post, Onusonus. I am beginning to like you more. The less government interference in people's lives such as exorbitant/unnecessary taxes, healthcare, welfare, & other useless social programs, the better. Let people take care of themselves.
Grace, one can still be a conservative and still realize that people can take care of themselves as best they can, and still not have enough to feed their families. There is nothing wrong with supplemental government help. That has nothing to do with Socialism. I vote Republican and know this full well. Socialism is a whole different animal---which Onusonus has depicted rather well in his meme.
Of course, there are people who work & still can't make ends meet. They should be helped, I understand. When people try all they can, yes they should have a hand up. Onusonus deftly demonstrated what socialism is in his meme. Totally agree w/your premise, Savvy. God Bless.
Onusonus all of these countries where Communist, not Socialist. Learn some history please. Secondly in 1932 there was a lot of poverty all around the world. Never heard about the Great Depression I guess. (around 1930..). it was in a well known capitalistic country....
https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union (Socialist)
You might want to review the history of all in their entirety.The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) was only socialist in name. Which doesn’t say much. Or would you say that the NSDAP (National Socialist German Labour Party) was a socialist party as well! No, they were both parties of authoritarian regimes.
You might try moving to Venenzuela and see how that works for you. I think you're missing the point.
And by now, anyone who is actually STILL following Bozo Trump after his disastrous nightmare of an era which includes public treachery on global television and sabotaging our healthcare system, might want to start shopping around for an apartment in Russia, because with each passing day, asylum in that God forsaken frigid land if Communist Vladimir Putin takes him, is where it looks like he's gonna' to end Up:
What has Venezuela to do with the US? I think you're missing the point. We use socialism in this country for many things, including education, and transportation.
If Trump succeeds in having his wall, then Imminent Domain will be required to seize the land from those who don't want to sell or have a barrier on their land. Another socialistic act by Trump himself.
You cannot avoid socialism of some sort in a progressive society.My previous posts indicate quite clearly that I support helping the poor, especially when they are trying their best.
History has proven that Socialism denies help and fairness to the poor and the middle class, and even denies anyone the opportunity to suceed. In fact, Socialism is only profitable for those who are "running" the country. I cannot support such a backward philosophy. No informed person can.I assume you're against Social Security and public education, as well as interstate highways.
Savvy isn't talking about Social Security, public education, & interstate highways. By the way, people contribute to social security through their work. People who don't work, don't receive social security because they didn't contribute via work. What people are rightfully alarmed about is the arcane, even asinine idea of universal healthcare. We don't need universal healthcare. Healthcare was fine before Obama hijacked it & created the disaster known as Obama"care". The government has no business in health care. The less government we have, the better. As I have stated endlessly, people need to learn how to provide for themselves & not to depend upon the government as their parent.
You are confusing socialism with insurance. Social security is an insurance for old age, like a pension. You put away money in FICA while working, and when you retire, you collect monthly benefits...
This, and many other social programs is not socialism. They are the safety net created by a compassionate society.
Socialism is just the government taking over all source of production and redistribute equally to all. Except, as you well know, some are more equal than others...Thus, socialism is a dis incentive to work, to improve. Laziness lead to a failure for all.THANK YOU, Jack. Some people just REFUSE to learn...………..
Are you aware many who never paid anything into SS received a check when it was first started, Jack? My grandfather neve paid into the program but was waiting for the postman at the mailbox on check day. Where did that money come from?
And interstate highways? Those aren't socialistic endeavors you take advantage of?No, they are not. The interstate highway, comes from road and gas tax. It is a way where the government collect taxes from the users. If you don’t own a car, and you don’t buy gas, you are not paying for those roads.
By the same token, many of our programs are usaged based.
The “general welfare” clause of our Constitution allows for this.
Some even say the public library is a form of socialism.
Not quite. It was suggested or invented by Benjamin Franklin, not a know socialist. In this case, it is a matter of efficiency. In those days, most people cannot afford to buy their own copy of a book. Also, after reading it, it sits on the shelf. The idea of a library is so people can share there books. It makes total sense.
Let me get back to socialism and the miss conception about it. It is government takeover of industry. That is why Venezuela is in such a dire straits right now. Hugo Cavez nationalized their oil industry years ago. Now they are broke. The government does not know how to run an oil business.And the land where the interstates are constructed? Imminent Domain played a massive part in the interstate system, just as it will if Trump's wall is built. How is this not a form of socialism by taking land for the good of all, Jack?
THANK YOU, Savvy. Socialism kills human initiative & stultifies human potential. It is analogous to the premise that everyone wins a prize which is implemented in schools these days. This everyone wins philosophy explains why so many millennial support socialistic policies of the Democratic Party.
Gosh, are you another person who doesn't believe in SS or driving anywhere? Who paid for your schooling, Grace?
- A member of the elite! But doesn't drive or ride on interstate highways nor pay in to any socialistic program. Good for you to be so self sustaining, Grace.
I am FAR from the elite, Randy. I am merely middle class. Something has to be done to curtail or even eradicate useless social programs. People can be taught to do for themselves. If one learns to do for oneself & not to depend upon the government, one feels better about himself/herself. People should be self-sustaining. The only people who should be on social programs are the physically, mentally, emotionally, & intellectually challenged. Such people NEED social programs to survive. Aren't talking about such people but healthy, able-bodied, & intelligent who expect the government to owe them a comfortable lifestyle.
Of course everybody overhere who are promoting the so caled free market system would love to live under the Pinochet regime which was the ideal state of Milton Friedman. Capitalism pur sang.
This simply does not work. And even the US is not a pure capitalistic country as the government is funding companies big time in the form of tax cuts and or bailing out. Like the car industry, the weapon industry, the argricultural industry. They all receive money and benefits. So why should a big company get state funding and a school not?
So many frightened folks on the right. I'll wager they really are scared now their idol is getting closer to being exposed. Serves them right in my opinion.
Good one! She is a gift that keeps giving.
Still, she's not as beneficent as Trump, or you guys, for that matter.
Hear AOC giving interview...
GrabienCLIPSLISTS
Grabien Mobile App
Get Grabien on the go!
Download
Grabien News
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I ACKNOWLEDGE MY ‘PRIVILEGE’ IN BEING BORN ‘CISGENDERED’
‘That is a privilege I have no matter how poor my family was when I was born’
TRANSCRIPT:
OCASIO-CORTEZ: “They’re like, and we need to — you know, they say discrimination or unfair incarceration of black men, and then they pause and the crowd cheers, and it’s like, in their mind, they’re like ‘you’re welcome’ for acknowledging it. And it’s like, okay, acknowledging racism is a really big step. It’s a really big step from where we were. But you’re right, it’s nowhere near enough and the solutions are so painful. Frankly, I find it — I find the solutions for white communities to be very painful because it’s very painful for a community to understand and have go through this — like, you can be — the idea that you can be poor and benefit from the color of your skin does not compute for a lot of people. And going through that realization is very painful or even just economically for people that were born with silver spoons. It’s very painful to admit that you had advantages and it’s just — “
GRIM: “Look what happened to Brett Kavanaugh when he was confronted. He melted down in front of the whole country.”
OCASIO-CORTEZ: “Oh my God — it literally is an identity meltdown, it’s a fundamental — “
GRIM: “I worked for everything I ever had.”
OCASIO-CORTEZ: “Yeah. And, like, that is the majority of a lot of communities, how a lot of communities feel. And it’s because, if you haven’t had a transition in your life where, you know, you were maybe born poor or born without certain privileges and then especially as you transition into having certain privileges in your life, you actually see and feel and sense and taste and smell all of the differences. If you’ve never experienced different treatment in your life, you wouldn’t know what different treatment feels like or looks like. And it’s really, really hard. I mean, it’s like — and we can all, almost every single person in this country can acknowledge some privilege of some of some type, you know. I’m a cisgendered woman. I will never know the trauma of feeling like I’m not born in the right body. And that is a privilege that I have, no matter how poor my family was when I was born. But it’s really hard for some people to admit that they — you know, it’s part of this weird American Dream mythology that we have, that for a lot of — in a lot of circumstances isn’t as true or isn’t as clearly communicated as we’d like for it, or we wish it was.”
GRAY: “Yeah, I’m working on it maybe. Maybe next piece on privileged dialogues on how to make it more constructive.”
GRIM: “Look forward to that one.”
GRAY: “My mentions don’t.”
OCASIO-CORTEZ: “It’s hard. I don’t envy you.”So what is next? Aren’t we all priviledged in one way or another?
It is called the human race.No we are not. Some people are far more privileged then others. rich people have more privilege then poor. white have more privilege then black. man have more privilege then women. This is almost globally.
That is a victims mentality...and all successful people will tell you to ignore those barriers...that is how they became successful...
Look at Barack Obama...the poster child for success and he is black...
Look at Michelle Obama, a black women, and Oprah...The issue of privilege is merely a paradigm-it isn't etched in stone. People have consistently broken paradigms.
It isn't a victim mentality. It is merely reality. Recognizing that a privilege or disadvantage exists is not equivalent to accepting it as unchangeable or insurmountable.
But that is exactly what AOC is saying...
I am Asian. I came from a poor family. I immigrated here at the age of 10 not speaking a word of English.
My father borrowed from relatives to make this journey.
He came here by himself and studied and graduated and then worked for a company that helped him apply for permanent status. We waited 4 and a half years before getting the approval from the INS to come here. I then waited 5 years before becoming a citizen.
I attend a public university. We were up against the ivy leagues schools in sports competition of fencing. We held our own despite poor equipment and resources...I attribute this to our great coach. He told us in no uncertain terms that our skills and hard work, not our money or wealth, will carry us farther in our careers.
That made a deep impression on me, a 20 year old. We traveled to Princeton and West Point and saw the impressive facilities...
Yet, once we are on the strip, one on one, we can compete on equal footing against the best and we won at times,
I am convinced...
If people are told this again and again, nothing can stop them. They are only limited by their imagination.I don't know how you read that into what AOC is saying.
Where does this end?
Are we going to have smart people with - brain privilege?
And pretty people with beauty privilege?
How about tall people with height privilege?
Or Athletic people with sports privilege?
Once you go down this road, where does it end?
Insanity...The truth is the only priviledge we, as Americans, have is being either born here or immigrated here legally.
We are privileged to live in the freeest country on earth.
We are privileged to have a unique Constitution.
A multillion applauses, Jack. You exemplify the NO EXCUSES, CAN DO ATTITUDE.
Discrimination does exist. People have prejudges and judges in a blink of an eye.
In a job interview a thing like nepotism does exists (the old boys network).
Do you really think that a person who is black has the same chances to get a job of power then a white man. Or a person with a battered face get the same chances as a pretty person. Or a women as a general of the army? Why is the pope not a women?
The world is full of prejudices. Many societies are build on structures of power. This power is given to rich white man, not poor black man with the same intelligence. And those rich white man who are on the top want to keep their position and make it difficult for people who are born poor to infiltrate this system. Could your parents afford a $70.000 a year of Yale university? Mine couldn't but W.Bush could. And I´m not less intelligent then W. Bush. The difference is in the power structure. W. Bush was born in a family which was already inside the power structure. Just like Trump, Clinton, the Kennedy´s etc.
Of course you have exceptions and you can name them but the structure is the same.What you described is true. It is reality and it is our human nature...and imprinted in our DNA...
The question is how do you change it or could you change it?
Or do we live with this reality and make the best of it for ourselves...instead of having a victim mentality that hold you back?
Suppose I make you God... and you can change anything you want.
How would you change our society to make this go away?
How will you make people less discriminating? And less selfish...?
And if you did, would we not be “human” as we were?
Think about it.
What is the alternative?Yes, the question is indeed how can you change the inequality in in the power structure.
I do agree with you that the victim mentality is not the way to go. But as for instance the #MeToo movement do have a point. That power positions let themselves easily for sexual abuse. Like Bill Clinton and Trump, Kavanaugh, Weinstein etc...
If I was God I would for instance allow all my bishops, cardinals and pope´s to be a man or a women. There is no excuse not to let the pope be a women. But the church is a patriarchal system. Just like the military is a patriarchal system. Most scientists, politicians, bankers, stock traders, doctors, artists, scholars are male.
I think if we could get a better equilibrium in society between men and women. A society where women are equally respected, a society with 50% women as top bankers, top lawyers (the supreme court counts only 3 women of the 9 persons, and only 1 black person and non Asian or Latin..), 50% of the politicians should be women as is not 50% of the population women.
If we could achieve this, this would already be a step in the right direction.
This needs besides good education for everyone a mentality change. With more role models for women. And not the Hollywood cliche role model where a women only can have success if she is beautiful with great boobs.Your suggestion seems reasonable however, will it work in practice. The problem with quotas is it assumes we are all equal in every way. That is clearly not the case. Our two genders of male and female have complemetary roles. That is why some tasks are better for men and others are better for women. Together we are a stronger family unit.
The same applies to athletic ability. That is why we have Olymoic events for male and female categories.
Take the Supreme court that you mentioned. We have too many groups to warrant a judge from each group, male, female, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Indian... well you get the idea.
The better way is our founding documents of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution...where it is stated that All men are created equal. If we remove the gender and color and race and religion factors, and just treat everyone blind folded... perhaps that is the better way?
I wonder which tasks are better for men and which for women. To be a general in command of the US army, does not need muscles but brains. The pope can be a women, there is not physical hindrance.
Of course you should first look at the quality and much later on the identity of the person who is asking for the job.
But it´s not that long ago that women got the right to vote, the right to become a subprime judge. It´s not that long ago a black person had to sit in the back of the bus. These changes need time.
It´s about taking those obstacles away to give everybody more or less the same chance to develop themselves at the max. This is not the case. I think if education was free or at least economical liable for everybody, more people would get the chance to fully develop themselves.
I have no problem with a capitalistic market system. but give me one thing: free education and skip private schools and I think the society as a whole would grow faster.I went to a free public university back in the 1970s NYC, when it was free.
I benefitted from exactly what you said.
However, what was a good unique experience, got destroyed when people with good intentions decided to implement “open enrollment”.
This one concept, in a few short years, ended the free education system of CUNY and caused the down grade of quality and standing of CUNY. 40 years later, it is still struggling...
So, I don’t think universal free higher education as proposed by some socialist Democrats is the solution.
It will kill the Educstion system. I don’t need to guess. It has happen already.
Just look up the history of the CUNY system...and weep. Why would we want to repeat that for the rest of America?We already have free education through the 12 grade so that is no problem. And for a great many people that is sufficient.
That leaves just "free" college, meaning paid for by someone other than the person benefiting. But free education does not mean what it says; it means total, 24 hour, support for anywhere from 4 to 8 or more years and that's a problem for me.
Far too many of our college students aren't there for an education, aren't there to learn a skill to support themselves with. They are there to have a good time, to play, because they don't want a job, because they don't want the effort or responsibility for themselves...for any of many reasons not to enter the real world and take on that responsibility for themselves. And I'm not interested in the slightest in supporting them.
Beyond that it really IS possible to get that education without the massive debt that so many incur. Scholarships and grants are readily available, low cost loans can be had and if all else fails there is always the GI bill for those serious about going to college. And of course there is always work, albeit an anathema to many students.
Bottom line is that there are ways to get that education without simply running up massive debt...if the student is willing to put the effort into it. It is not necessary, or desirable, to require others to take these children under their financial wing and support them so they can have a great time for the next 4 years at someone else's cost.
And finally, I will suggest that colleges and universities can cut their costs considerably and thereby their prices. Many classes, mostly useful only for entertainment of the students, can be dropped. Such nonsense as "safe zones" and extra counselors for those upset about political campaigns can certainly be ended. Massive sports programs costing millions are not part of an education, but only entertainment. There are lots of ways to cut costs in most universities.Wilderness, I shall go further than what you eloquently stated. There should be strict quotas as to whom gets into college by grades. Open college enrollment only bastardize the value of a college degree. Return to strict quotas & you will see the quality of college education rise.
I don't know about quotas, but there should certainly be strict guidelines. College is not the place to take grade school or even high school remedial classes for those that didn't learn.
That's what jackclee said, we are human, and privilege is the truth of the human race.
GACool! Us old white men are still in charge, eh GA?
Randy, you know as well as I do that we stopped being in charge the minute we said "I do"
GADang GA, don't tell me you're whipped!
Yeah, me too....
Who invented the iPhone, iPod, the iPad...?
Was it Steve Jobs? or his employees.
Without his vision, and his company that he and Woziazk started, in their garage, where would Apple be...?
You got to think these things thru...
All companies started this way.
Some one has a bright idea. Took a chance, invested his own money, created something others want, he makes a profit and the rest is history.
President Obama never got that.
He was wrong when he claimed “you didn’t built that...”
Yes these people did built that and that is why they are rich and successful and in the process made their employees rich and their stockholders rich...
Ocasio-Cortez campaign documentary wins Sundance film festival audience award
The film eceived a five-minute standing ovation from the audience after its viewing.
Directed by Rachel Lears, the documentary was the subject of a multi-day bidding war between Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other companies, according to Variety.
Yep, she's having a hard time.Poor little darling is obviously clueless. ;-)
Here is Gloria Alvarez who is a millennial and who understands socialism...
Everyone should watch this video...
They will learn so much more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuXg7w3aAg&t=I am glad to hear that. But your party is moving that direction and you seem to be OK with that...or am I wrong.
What do you think of Howard Schultz?I believe capitalism works best for most commodities. I also believe that the provision of certain essential services should not be driven by a profit motive, including health care, incarceration, and education.
I don't believe that is an extremist view, but a moral and practical one.
I think Howard Schulz is just another egotistical billionaire looking to buy the presidency."I also believe that the provision of certain essential services should not be driven by a profit motive, including health care, incarceration, and education."
Is there room for some capitalism in those things? The large majority of hospitals are non-profit (although few doctors are) and what isn't is often cutting edge and specialist. Same for prisons - what isn't govt. is hired by govt. because it is cheaper. Same for education, and what isn't is generally religious based or the top of the tier in quality, although there are lots and lots aimed specifically at particular jobs.
Is there no room for those that wish to compete with govt.?I'm sure that those who can afford private schools will also be able to directly fund their own health care. Is that what you mean?
No, I mean that while all of those things you listed are mostly govt. run there are still some that are not. A relative handful that are private enterprise, for profit.
Is that acceptable in you mind?
And I may have missed the entire point, for I was considering only the for-profit hospital, the for-profit schools (both lower and upper education) and even the few for-profit prisons. Your wording did not bring out the idea of govt. paid health care or education - only govt. run. It is not possible, in this country, for govt. to pay for the health care people want, so that never entered my mind.
So be honest. How has government runned healthcare, and prinsons and education done? Give a grade from A - F....
I watched an interview with Schultz. He does not come off as egotistical at all. He came from nothing (housing projects) and rose up to become a self-made man. His manner of speaking was not egotistical. He was plain spoken, direct, and polite. He doesn't need to buy the presidency. He's wealthy. Besides, becoming president is one big headache.
I'm always amazed at how easily the Left typecasts everyone, without any facts to back up their statements.They loved him until he decided to run as an independent...now he is the enemy.
"He doesn't need to buy the presidency. He's wealthy. " Can you please are explain the juxtaposition of these two sentences?
"I'm always amazed at how easily the Left typecasts everyone, without any facts to back up their statements."
I do not speak for "the left." Who is typecasting?Running for the presidency creates more wealth. Schultz does not need to create more wealth because he is a billionaire. (That is what I meant).
In using the word "typecasting" I was referring to your comment about billionaires. The Left always targets billionaires, as if they are all the same and all evil and greedy. Your comment was no different, and thus, typical.
If you were to read Schultz's story and discover what he has done for the poor and middle class, you might change your opinion. But I won't hold my breath. Sorry.If you decided to run for president, would you have even a tiny chance of getting anywhere? No. My comment was that Schulz is another egotistical billionaire wanting to buy the presidency. I said nothing about evil and greedy. He has the means to pay for his own campaign, regardless of the strength or weakness of his support from the people. He is egotistical to think he would be the best person to run the country given his complete lack of governmental experience.
I have read his story. He seems to be an intelligent, caring guy. That doesn't make him qualified to be President of the United States, nor do his billions of dollars.I would not disqualify someone because they've run a billion dollar company and happen to be wealthy. Plenty of seasoned politicians are miserable failures when it comes to running Congress....and some of them have been around for 40 years!
Anyhoo, glad you read Schultz's story.You're entitled to think he's the bees' knees; I'm entitled to think otherwise. It's entirely possible he would make a great president. He's definitely heads and shoulders above the current billionaire occupant of the White House. Me, I'm looking for something besides a rich guy deciding he wants to be president.
Gloria is a GROWNUP as opposed to Cortez who is an IMMATURE CHILD, Jack!
You know, I don't even agree with much of AOC's philosophy, but this blatantly sexist and condescending attitude from her detractors only serves to cement the stereotype that conservatives are stodgy old stick-in-the-mud sexists.
Geez.They are obviously threatened by her, Pretty. Good for her!
Threatened? Hardly. We welcome her.
It will insure GOP majority for years to come.
Embracing a socialism has never worked any where in the world and it won’t work here in America.Trump himself will prevent the GOP majority for years to come.
Not threatened by her. Could care less......Randy. Don't get it TWISTED.....DON'T GET IT TWISTED. Just because an assessment is made on AOC doesn't means that one is threatened.
Really? If telling it like it is is sexist, I guess I am.
Take a breath PrettyPanther. Breathhhhh....
Now, consider the "conservative" respondents in this thread, (I am only addressing this thread, I don't what "conservatives in other venues are saying). How many are there? One mainly, but you could count up to two, (damn, counting GM I found three, still ...). Do you want your perspectives painted by two voices?
GAI get your point. I did say it was a stereotype, which means I don't believe all, or even most, conservatives are sexist. But I understand why you might think I'm going there.
I think I do understand your point PrettyPanther, and relative to the voices you are hearing here, I can't disagree, but ...
One or two voices don't generally represent a group. (hopefully). I feel I am part of the "Conservative" mindset, but I have not jumped on the wagon to this thread because I think it is on the wrong track.
I am still deciding which is worse; that she offers the fodder, or that 'they' are so easily baited.
GAEh, they're being led around by the nose by right-wing news and commenters. AOC is the perfect trifecta for a liberal boogeyman (female, confident, socialist) with the added benefit of being one of those college-educated young people fresh from the brainwash factory.
Again, I don't think all conservatives are sexist.
Told you many times that I am not a Conservative. I merely disagree w/AOC's unrealistic, preposterous philosophy. Again, Liberal isn't a monolith. I am a Liberal who disagrees w/the socialist swerve of the current Democratic Party. I am a traditional Liberal. The modern Liberal wouldn't be classified as Liberal in the traditional sense but a Leftist. People who know me know that I am far from Conservative- I am a feminist, pro-choice, New Ager who don't believe in organized religion, supporter of LBGT community, & believe in equal rights for all according to his/her merits.
I merely disagree with some of the ridiculously radical views of the Democratic Party & now I am a Conservative. Oh my God, are we in high school, now? Please grow up, there are many types of Liberals as there are many types of Conservatives. Such factions ……..AREN'T MONOLITHIC! That is analogous to saying that pro-lifers believe in large families & don't believe in birth control...…….Let's get real here!Yes, you and Jack like to claim it's all about policy. Your words say otherwise.
It IS ……....ABOUT POLICY. How many times must I say this. PAY ATTENTION...…...PAY ATTENTION! There is such a thing as not being a sheeple & thinking for oneself. I have always thought for myself, whether it was popular or not! I say what I say-if one likes it, fine; if one hates what I say, WELL..……..FINE also!
Yes, because those who disagree with you are children while those who agree with you are grownups. Uh huh.
Yelling at me in all caps certainly does not seem very grown up, but what do I know..Yes, I can be passionate in my stance. Sorry for shouting at you, Pretty Panther....…… I am a person who doesn't fall for the party line. Although I am a Democrat, I will critique any aspect I find wrong w/the party although I agree w/the majority of its philosophy. It is great discussing things w/you. You are okay.
I applaud you for your courage. Standing up for your belief and not catering to the bully tactics...
The progressives claim they are for a big tent, until you disagree with them and then you are the outcast. Howard Schultz is a prime example.
The Democratic party has been hijacked and most democrats are not paying attention. Sad...Jack, I am not one to follow the crowd. I was never one to be the popular one. I march to my own individual drummer. Being an only child teaches one to be highly independent & individualistic(smiles). I was never part of any type of groupthink.
Howard Schulz is not running as a Democrat. If he were, he would be receiving a much warmer reception, for obvious reasons.
Congratulations. Michael Moore just declared AOC the leader of the Democratic Party. Hooray....
I am astounded and speechless."Audience members at the annual Sundance Film Festival voted Saturday to recognize the documentary "Knock Down the House" with the festival's coveted annual audience award in the documentary category.
The film, described on Twitter as a "powerful and painful" look at the freshman Democrat's stunning 2018 defeat of former Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in the state's primary election by one attendee of the festival, reportedly received a five-minute standing ovation from the audience after its viewing. "
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/i … m-festival
People are treated according to their supposed socioeconomic worth. This is REALITY which one cannot escape from. People aren't treated equally no matter how one espouses it. The dream world purports that all are treated equally but in reality, such isn't the case at all. Wealthy & upper middle class people have opportunities that solidly middle class doesn't have. The solidly middle class have opportunities that the lower socioeconomic classes don't have.
Wealthy people are treated better. Their worth is much more than that of the middle & lower classes. They are respected because of their wealth. They have better schools, they live in better neighborhoods, & they are less likely to go to jail because of their wealth as they can afford the best defense lawyers. Poor people aren't respected. They are at THE BOTTOM of society. They have no money so their self worth is considered low to nil by society. They are deemed & treated as if they are powerless. Money does determine human worth in society, particularly in American & other western cultures & societies.Getting off topic here. To conclude, Cortez will learn the political culture of Washington D.C. She will make her own contribution to politics. Her age is inconsequential in this for it is good to have young people participate in congress whether or not we agree or disagree w/their premise. It is good to have youthful energy in congress.
I believe that young people should have GREAT jobs regardless of their political beliefs as long as they aren't alt-right(remember, Richard Spencer,ewwww). Even though Cortez is a socialist, she isn't as dangerous as the young alt-righters. Cortez all in all has a good heart. Her heart is in the right place. Young people are aware & intelligent. Again, if a young person is educated, h/she should have a GREAT job-why not? I am a believer in meritocracy. Everything should be based upon intelligence, merit, & education-I say!
That's what I think too. She's naive and has a lot to learn. Right now, she is thinking aloud and someone should tell her to research more about her subjects before she makes these blanket statements. But her youthful energy is good, and she will mature in time. We were all her age once, and eventually as she learns the ropes, she may have some better and achievable ideas. I do believe there is an element of sexism about her as well. Not from everyone, but some. We've had many young men elected to Congress who had awful ideas, but they get treated like whiz kids.Paul Ryan comes to mind.
I disagree. She is like a candle in the wind. She burn bright now and will be snuffed out by the old insiders of DC...Pelosi and Schumer...
She may get snuffed out but I think they will get burnt dancing around the flame.
Have you watched the House of cards? The people in power will do so without a finger print...
Maybe. But this game of pretending to support this bizarre green new deal will be obvious when nothing comes of it. There will be hell to pay when the young, unthinking voters they are pandering to find out their tantrums were actually ignored.
Yep, Paul Ryan was a whiz kid and Trump is a media genius.
Paul Ryan is a RINO. He lied to Trump about repeal of ACA, and about building the wall.
With friends like Ryan, who needs enemies...
He has never rejected a budget proposed by Obama...
You have to winder how he sleeps at night.
Trump is trying to his best but getting headwind from both parties...Ryan came in with dumb ideas just like AOC, yet he was hailed as a whiz kid. Trump speaks at a sixth grade level, lies like he breathes, but is hailed as a great media genius and communicator. You all are entitled to your opinion, but right now, you're coming across as threatened and hypocritical. It's pretty amusing.
Wouldn't it be nice if a certain portion of your taxes, say 10% were up to you to allocate as you see fit towards the government programs of your choosing? That way, those of us who wish to use it on social programs to humanely assist those who need a hand can achieve that goal, while others who would like to see an increase in, say, security, can send their money that way. The remaining 90% goes to Congress to use in their annual budgeting.
Isn't part of the problem with representative government that in certain years, around half the population will disagree to some extent with how the money they contribute is being spent? Would allowing some participation at the grassroots level solve anything?Valeant, you are correct in your premise regarding the allocation of taxes. Bravo!
Sounds good on paper but let the politicians get a hold of this and they will muck it up.
There is nothing stopping you as an individual to donate to what ever cause you like. There are plenty of private charities that does a better job on social programs...
My preference as a conservative is to limit the size of the government to the essentials, and let the local governments and private charities do the rest. They are closer to the problems at hand and will usually have the better solutions.I might work if taxes were raised 10% across the board. And if politicians were not allowed to touch that 10% you designate for a specific purpose; if they do it will disappear faster than the 15% SS taxes paid in specifically as our own, personal retirement account.
I would hope that some part of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez enables her to hear what the New York governor is saying and understand what it means. She has so much to learn. The state of New York is having a record setting budget deficit.
“This is the flip side. Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. The rich leave, and now what do you do?”
— -Andrew Cuomo
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article … 587646.phpI doubt she is listening to anyone...she is the darling of the media and hollywood...I predict she will have her own reality TV show once she leaves politics behind...
To the contrary, he is actually maling a difference. To us on the right, he is doing exactly what he was elected to do.
His poll is at 48% better than Congress or Nancy Pelosi...haha- Yes, he's made a terrific difference in the way our allies are treated badly now, and our adversaries are treated royally. That's what his fans elected him to do?
And do keep watching his poll numbers, Jack! Jack, the reality is that when you tax the rich, the rich leave. That is what has happened to New York. The wealthy in New York pay the lion's share of the tax revenue. They are leaving in record numbers taking their wealth with them. This is what is causing New York to have budget problems.
They are going to low-tax states like Texas and Florida where there is no state tax. Again, as always, "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
Are you ever tempted to go to another state?In the meantime, Trump's massive tax breaks to the rich enabled them to spend over a trillion dollars on buying back their own stock. So much for them creating new factories and jobs with better salaries with the tax breaks.
Of course, only those believing Trump's predictions took him seriously.Here is at least 7 companies...
https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-m … -election/
I will bet you didn’t learn that watching CNN or listening to NPR...I detest these slideshow articles, but checked out the first three anyway. The first 3 listed less than 10,000 PROJECTED jobs to be created. You can add up the next 4 yourself if you care to, but this doesn't seem like the multitudinous workforce Trump promised with his tax breaks.
This was just a few sample to let you know you are barking up the wrong tree.
There are many others including good manufacturing jobs announced by Apple computer coming to America.
You are getting half the story and still getting it wrong. How come?
Why NPR and CNN spent 90% of coverage on Trump and paints a negative spin of him?
Why do you believe them even after they have been proven to create fake news...?
The economic numbers are out there for anyone to research.
Don’t take my word for it.
Do your own independent research and come back here and tell me I am wrong.
Otherwise, just eat your humble pie.And the total jobs from the link you listed, Jack? I asked you to count them up as I detest these type of slideshow articles. So what's the huge number of present jobs added because of the tax cuts? You're so brilliant I wouldn't think it would be difficult for you to answer.
Mike, Here's a blurb from your link that speaks to that "lion's share."
"The combined state and local tax rate for high-income New Yorkers is the second highest in the nation. Due to New York's progressive tax structure, the top one percent of earners account for nearly half of the state's income tax revenue.
And then there was this blurb that may explain why NY's rich folks were able to swallow those 2nd highest tax rates in the nation - until now. They got to deduct those high NY taxes from their other similar tax liabilities:
"The federal tax measure, which placed a $10,000 cap on SALT deductions, went into effect last year. Cuomo said the majority of homeowners impacted chose to file their 2017 taxes early to take advantage of the benefit before the change went into effect"
Even their Comptroller is referencing this:
"DiNapoli cited anecdotal reports of New Yorkers leaving the state or changing their primary residence and Wall Street volatility as factors in the revenue gap."
I wonder if his "anecdotal reports" have any more validity then that given to forum member's anecdotal reports?
GAGa, have you ever read the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand? This is exactly what is happening in New York. In this situation, life is imitating art.
It is penalizing the successful among us. Leftist Socialist Party strikes yet.....AGAIN & AGAIN...……& AGAIN...….
That is just it. The people getting hurt are the very people they are trying to help. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
I have read Atlas Shrugged. And I can see your comparison.
From the perspective of your linked article, it looks like 2019 will be a very telling year for New York - regarding the validity of that comparison.
GAOh, those socialist-communists-brain-washed-liberal fox viewers and their crazy ideas!
This is AOC fault!
It is called "greed". Greed for what one wants but does not want to pay for, so will force others to buy it for them. As long as "might makes right" is alive and well we will have such greed.
Obvioudly, 70% of FOX News viewers have been brainwashed by liberal college professors. ;-)
- Onusonusposted 6 years ago0
Here's another lesson for AOC to learn. Looks like she's got it down packed.
It is part of being a "unity" force, of creating yet another division in our culture to separate people from each an allow more power to those that run the country.
Yet, a homogeneous stream of old white guys sitting there in that Chamber year after year, that's not division at all.
I saw none on the Republican side. Blacks, whites and hispanics, all mixed together. Men and women, all mixed together. Young and old (in spite of the nasty comment to the contrary) all mixed together. A pretty homogenous group, without visible divisions.
The Democrat side, however, made it extremely plain to the world that a new faction, women, are taking control and will not mix with the other members of Congress. They will sit as a group, they will high five as a group, they will congratulate each other as a group. No males need apply to the new "unified" group. We can only hope that appearances are deceiving; they they intend to run the country, not play the dominance games they appeared to be most concerned with.Why is the right so frightened by young women, or women in general, Dan?
Why would you ask such a question, with no truth at all in the insinuation that it is true?
Have you read all of this thread? And why do you insinuate things about the wall that aren't correct?
I can't believe this is still going on. These newly elected Congresswomen wore white in unity, because it is the 100th anniversary of Women's Suffrage. Also,they were elected together as a rejection of Trump's policies. They are all newcomers in a time where many different races of people were elected. This is something that shows racial unity in our country, which is badly needed, and should be celebrated.
Stop acting like they are all brain dead women and were told where to sit and what to wear. Didn't any of you guys dress in a same color, or grow you hair longer for a bit in solidarity of some issue? Many of you came of age around in the 70s I think.
Everyone has Free Will, and too much is being made of this. Obviously, the policies which are too far left may not be accepted by the majority. All political ideas have to pass through the process, and some of them obviously need intensive research.
But these winners all deserve at least a chance to be happy for the way their campaigns won. So what if they toss off a few ideas from the top of their heads, without thinking about it so much? None of you gentlemen ever did that? If so, there would never be any new ideas. And our country could use some right now. This is beginning to sound very misogynist to me.
Also, chill out about this "New Green Deal." It's not like it's been signed, sealed, delivered. We need new ideas for green energy. Trump has no interest in clean energy, he is mentally living in past generations, when people worked in mines and production lines. Nobody wants jobs like that anymore, and he doesn't understand that. It's 2019. Of course, the biggest R donors all have their fortunes made from oil, so they have no interest in seeing a clean Earth.
It's always been a man's world, since the beginning of time. It's about time more women were in positions of power. Get used to it. Don't be afraid. The system still works.You are right. This forum was started to help her. I never intended it to be a critique of her ideas and policy proposals.
However she gets there, either with friendly advice or the school of hard knocks...it is fine with me.Whew, Jack! I'll let her know you're fine with it. She'll be so relieved..
LOL, whatever. You have dramatically misinterpreted the wearing of white by inserting your own fear.
Some things are simply a lost cause.I hope you are right. On the other hand, assuming that the display did NOT represent the unity you saw in it yourself doesn't seem right, either.
Bankrupt? Oh, you mean like this? Here's just a tiny sample of unecessary "Trump Induced Bankruptcies severely hurting our farmers and then there's CONservative REPUBLICAN Socialism in the same article: I guess this blows the white nationalist alt-right's crying and whining about bankruptcy and socialism right out of the water:
"Farmer bankruptcies swell to decade high in Farm Belt"
"Between the lines: Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings are still below the highs of 2010 when looking at nationwide numbers. But the Midwest is hurting, and even though the Trump administration has been rolling out federal government relief for farmers to make up for tariff damage, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle fear it is only a short-term, partial solution."
https://www.axios.com/farmer-bankruptci … 0d7cc.htmlJake, as a retired farmer of 50 years, it's become apparent the average person doesn't realize how tenuous our food supply is, and the tariffs are simply dumb.
The need for migrant workers who cannot get visas to harvest produce all over the country doesn't help either. Crops rot in the fields and the farmer, and the US economy loses again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlpS4vhKP0
Little miss darling in actionThey won't though! It's too revealing...
Wow. That was an embarrassing video, not to mention---cheesy. A member of Congress running a faux high school debate? Apparently, it doesn't take much to be a darling of the media or a Sundance festival favorite. What's really pitiful is that people take her arguments seriously. But I guess that is how Socialist leaders are made. They know how to manipulate the ignorant. I could only watch part of the video because it is such a juvenile display of nonsense.
Please enlighten us with your brilliance and explain exactly what was incorrect about what she said. Explain it like I'm a child. And, especially explain how everyone on the esteemed panel is wrong, since every single one validated her questions/statements.
This might take awhile so I 'll be patient.This oughta be good if she actually responds!
If you want a brilliant response, re-read GA's assessment. But to answer your question, yes, it is easy for those in office to be corrupt. Wow. Big revelation! Maybe AOC checked in with Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel, currently under investigation for ethics violations, and who will receive a slap on the wrist and then return to "doing really bad things" as AOC likes to put it.
Anyhoo, at the very end of the contrived Q&A forum, AOC suddenly asks whether the president is held to the same ethical oversight as members of Congress. The answer was "no." Interesting.
So I guess AOC's lightening rod forum was a way of implying that while Congress is held accountable, the president is not. I'm sorry, is that why Clinton was impeached? Is that why presidents run the risk of serving only one term? Is that why we have the Mueller probe? (which has so far revealed nothing)
My point is that AOC's contrived forum was not interesting to me because AOC is no less liable to corruption than anyone else. She has already proved that she is unethical by having lied about her childhood and her mother (who was not a maid, after all) to gain sympathy and to get elected. Not to mention, she has proposed the New Green Deal, which is the most corrupt, dishonest proposal I have witnessed in my lifetime. So she really isn't in a position to imply the president is corrupt when she is highly unethical herself.GA did not challenge the content or accuracy and neither did you. Like I said, it was basic but still a cut above "they're bad, bad people and we're going to stop it. I'm going to stop it."
Who said that? And why is this dumber than that?We did challenge the faux forum as much as possible, given the contrived Q&A, whilst still realizing the video/forum does not deserve serious introspection. So, if you don't care to hear the answers, maybe you shouldn't ask in the first place.
*Additional corrupt members of Congress that AOC can convene with and get tips from (and who are under investigation):
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)Rep.
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)Rep.
John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
It's just a matter of time before AOC join the list of corrupt politicians who are being investigated for ethics violations.Lol, still not a single delineation of an inaccuracy in the video. What "answers" did you provide, exactly?
So, since she shares political affiliation with some who are being investigated, she is automatically going to be corrupt? Wow, that's some fine logic there. Does it apply to Rs, too?
I never said that. As usual, you ignored the content within my answer and contrived a whole new answer for me. That, by the way, is an example of what it means to be unethical.
I'll say it again since you requested that I speak to you "as if you are a child." Here we go: I listed some ways in which AOC is corrupt. Listening is not one of your strengths, Pretty Panther. But I already knew that. Just be glad some of us bothered to watch the Q&A, even though it was basically a waste of our precious time.
Sorry, but I'll now reserve my assessments for others who can debate with more honesty. Good luck to you."I never said that."
Really?
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)Rep.
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)Rep.
John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
It's just a matter of time before AOC join the list of corrupt politicians who are being investigated for ethics violations.
Speaking of honesty....
Well damn! Sure doesn't look like a naive "little darling" does she?
But... how about a little perspective introspection? Wait! This is not bashing or criticizing AOC, it is just what I think is probably 'the rest of the story.'
First, she gets a plum spot on the Oversight Committee. Kind of unusual for a rookie, but, also a typical party machination - she's a current star. Either party would do the same.
Second, even if I were to put her in a class with 'Sheldon', and I have not joined in the AOC bashing before, so I won't start now, I still think that her "game" performance in this video was an orchestrated group event. I can't deny the thought that this hearing was coached and scripted, and predictable in its outcome. Just look at the panel. With the right set-up, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
But I think the bottom line is that she won't need any of jacklee's help. I think her party is going to give her all she needs.
GAGood assessment. Now, are you willing to tackle the subject matter of the video?
Careful what you ask for PrettyPanther. Of course, I would tackle that video's subject matter, but you probably wouldn't like it.
The truths in that video, and there were truths, were so loaded with inference and innuendo that they almost became caricatures of their point.
Take a look at the first question:
"If I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees, is that, is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that?"
There is the rhetoric of the first populace boogyman - Corporate PACs. But, consider, wouldn't a local lumber company owner, (incorporated owner), forming a PAC to support a candidate for city council, fit the same categorization? Is that owner then the same boogyman portrayed by AOC's question?
Further, wouldn't a local PTA supporting a candidate for a Board of Education president with a Saturday Meet & Greet be the same as her "Corporate PAC?"
Of course, it is a matter of degrees but isn't the essence of her question the same as saying collective support of a candidate is the boogeyman?
But it gets better. Look how she prefaced her question:
.
"I'm going to be the bad guy, (which I am sure half the room would agree with), and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible. Ideally to enrich myself and advance my interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people. So, and by the way, I have enlisted all of you as my co-conspirators. You are going to help me legally get away with all of this."
And then she asks that innocent sounding question.
Come on PP. Do you really defend that as a legitimate question? As a non-partisan script?
If you think she is right, then do you also think that there should be no collective support of a candidate, (you can't even have a backyard BBQ to urge your neighbors to vote, or man a cupcake table at the supermarket to promote your candidate's name).
Do you think that the question that she finally got to, would have the same loaded inferences if she hadn't prefaced it as she did?
That first question was, to me, the most obvious, hardest to defend, (from her perspective), and easiest to vanquish.
The following questions were just varieties of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions.
However, if you have the steel, (no fence-sitting on this one), we can move on to the other "questions" in sequence.
But don't misunderstand my first response to the video link. Although I don't think AOC is a dummy, I still think she is a bit politically naive, and that this video portrayal was a Democratic party, (recently heard that saying Democrat party is incorrect), orchestrated and scripted event. She was just the lead actor.
GAOf course it was orchestrated and scripted. Of course the questions were designed to elicit a particular reaction.
The entire performance was intended to highlight how easy it is for a corrupt and dishonest person to thrive in this political system we have created. Obviously, an honest person could use the exact same methods, but the point is that there are.little to no checks against corruption.
It's not nuance; it's basic. Know anyone else who got elected by keeping the message simple?I believe that we do have checks against political corruption. I also believe smart people can find ways to circumvent, or even subvert, those checks.
I also believe that to make those checks nearly undefeatable would require some further restricting of everyone's political choice freedoms and free speech Rights.
Consider this "basic;" The only basic difference between that small town lumber company supporting a city council candidate, and a corporate giant like Purdue Pharma supporting a Congressional candidate is the matter of scale.
The measures needed to restrict Purdue will also restrict the lumber company owner. And the measures that restrict that lumber company will also restrict that PTA group. And right on down to the point that the only foolproof protection against big corp PACs will be a banning of any and all collective support. Otherwise, there will always be loopholes and runarounds that smart people will use.
Take a shot at it. What would be your first shoot-from-the-hip thought, (not asking for a foolproof panacea, just the first thought that comes to mind), about how to control the power of those big corp PACs?
I believe that your answer will illustrate that AOC's first question was a performance on par with Pres. Trump's statement about late-term abortions in the State of the Union address. It was purposely misleading, (by portraying less than the full truth), and intended to draw a particular emotional response, rather than a reasoned one.
GAFirst shoot-from-the-hip thought:
Citizens can only donate to House candidates in their district and Senate candidates in their state. Likewise, corporations, unions, and nonprofits can only donate within jurisdictions in which they operate, according to rules set by Congress. There shall be caps on donations, also set by Congress.Well damn! That's a shot worth investigating. If I understand your point, it is that for non-national seats you, (or any collective of "you"), can only offer support to your representatives.
Some logistical problems come immediately to mind; such as media broadcast boundaries overlapping jurisdictional boundaries, but as a quick-draw shot it merits consideration.
I am thinking I might find some problems with "neighbor helping neighbor" type issues, but I will get back to you on this one.
GA
Yes,that's a perfect example.
For people who don't want to be bothered with thinking. That would be too hard.So an old mailbox is the key?
Losing your touch by not posting a good stolen meme, oo!Another brilliant comeback full of fact based rebuttals. Keep trying.
Do you have any ideas of your own? You seem to be fond of posting other people's ideas of what THEY believe.
And was the mailbox meme an original thought? Probably so, as it was a bit silly except for children and right wingers. Better stick to other peoples ideas..Wow, you really changed my mind about socialism. Nice rebuttal.
I suppose you believe your--or others-- memes are taken seriously?
If I sent you a photo of several mailboxes, would it really change your mind?Holy cow, you just blew my mind again. I think I'm starting to feel the Bern...
I take it you don't use our highways or attended public school. That explains a lot.
That's not an answer, oo.Im not gonna let you get away with trying to evade the question.
Once more as simply as I can make it. Do you use our public highways, or have used our public school system, or are expecting a SS check in the future, or ever fly anywhere on a commercial airline?
Your answer--if you dare to--will tell everyone if you are really against all socialistic programs. And your stolen memes are hilarious. But I understand considering your age...The average person gets a -22% return on what they put into social security. If we were able to invest it ourselves, our retirement could be twice as big. Also the government owes trillions of dollars to social security.
Once again another astounding example of the failure of our benevolent government.Same question, aa! Bok, bok, bok,bok! Get a little backbone and answer my question or I will continue to ask it.
You keep talking about socialism, so admit you take advantage of it, or stop criticizing it. Otherwise, it's simply hypocrisy...as I already knew!+1000000000000000000000000000000000000, RIGHT ON!
Still frightened to answer my question, oo? Have you used public highways or attended public school? Come on onus, it's a simple yes or no answer. Even you can say those two words.....
- Onus is a hoot, Pretty. Facts mean absolutely nothing to him as he never fact checks the memes he steals from others.
A copy and paste type of guy on his good days.....Ya know what, you're right. My mistake for thinking that a person who wants to junk every car in America, replace every power plant, and renovate every single building in the country within the next decade and can't afford her own apartment is unfit to be on a finance committee.
Like, I totally can't wait to help "provide economic security to those unwilling to work".As usual, you're reporting fake news, aa. Your ignorant stolen meme was disproven by Pretty Panther, and yet you keep repeating the same false information.
Gee, you shore are smart! And I don't believe anyone is depending on you for any sort of help.Yeah, way to debunk me with all those facts and figures.
Even if the meme was debunked you still can't deny the idiocy outlined in her "new Green Deal". Or are you that indoctrinated?
And how do you know whether or not anyone is depending on me? Oh wait, I forgot, you're stalking me."Even if the meme was debunked" is as close to an admission of posting false info as we ever get from you, aa.
And one only needs common sense to tell a lot about you.Have you used our public roads or our public schools in your lifetime, onus?
Oh gawdddd...! Enough, enough. Randy, I truly tried to resist, but after the fifth or sixth, or tenth repetition you have worn me down.
Those things are not socialism or socialist programs! They may be things that follow a precept of a collective good provided by a collective effort, (payment/taxes), and that collective effort may be viewed as a socialist effort, but that is not a true representation--in my opinion.
Collective effort does not equal socialism. Would you consider a Union a socialist organization?
GAThe question is for the benefit of onusonus, GA. He refuses to answer so I keep asking. And yes, it's a form of socialistic programs to benefit the many over the few on anything.
Does a Union benefit everyone, or just some involved in the union?"Socialistic program" Is that the same as Socialism?
This isn't a hill I want to die on Randy. It is semantics.
I agree a collective effort to benefit all and paid for by all could be described as a "socialistic program," but, that is not socialism, and that is the intent of such claims--to equate such programs to a socialist government movement.
I do not believe that to participate in an effort that benefits all at a cost to all equates to socialistic beliefs. Maybe that is picky of me. *shrug*
GAThe very reason you don't consider highways and schools as socialism is because it does indeed benefit the many over the few. Those who own lots of land for farming purposes are taxed above the common citizen's income rate. They also pay more school taxes even though they may not have any children who attend school. Those with no property pay no school taxes
On top of this, the land poor farmer has to pay extra timber taxes even though it took 30 years to grow the trees.
I'm not complaining though. I drive on the roads and attended public schools. Yes, the few aren't really the few if you honestly look at It, GA.I don't pay "school taxes" either. But I DO pay property taxes, which go (mostly) to schools. And I pay state income taxes, and sales taxes, which also goes to schools.
Property taxes are the same thing, Dan. Be thankful you can afford them and help educate the children.
Now the issue is property taxes? Relative to your "land poor farmer" thought, you will get no argument from me. I agree with your inference.
I have dismounted this hill and am off to search for another compound. Maybe I can turn back the hands of time. ;-)
GA
Thank you, GA!!! The "public road, public schools" thing was getting old. Really, really old. There's a phrase, Randy: AD NAUSEAM. Learn what it means. Seriously. Try using an argument (if that's what you want to call what you're trying to do) that makes sense. This one isn't working for you. For real.
Actually, considering a union is not completely outside of the concept of socialism. If one is required to join in order to work, if members are protected against nearly any employer action, if prices are set outside of value, if the union pays support when unemployed, etc....isn't that what modern socialism is all about?
I made a venture to the hilltop Wilderness. The view isn't worth the climb so I am moving on to the next one.
Whether right or wrong, I just don't equate this socialism argument with the programs mentioned.
"That's all I have to say about that."
GA
And don't forget the fact that nearly every government program he has mentioned is mismanaged, overspent, and could be done a thousand times better by private industry.
HELLO........HELLO. Onusonus, what happened to the concepts of accountability & responsibility. People in the past DID for themselves, now many people view the government as their parents.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pa … ort-tlaibs
The gift that just keep on giving...
AOC just doesn’t know when to quit.Now, Cortez intends to sign an impeachment petition indicating that Trump overextended his presidential authority.
"....wants to junk every car in America, replace every power plant, and renovate every single building in the country within the next decade...."
More falsehoods.“upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification,”
"overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector... zero emission vehicle infrastructure..."
You were saying.That does not amount to junking every car or renovating every building.
You're right - there are a few all electric cars around and they are all right. So are hydrogen (fuel cell) cars. But every other car must go, along with trains, planes and buses that are not electric or fuel cell.
“Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States" means just that; renovate every single building. No exceptions. The only argument can be about the terms "upgrading" and "renovate" - they seem the same to me.
Every building to be re-wired, for instance, for "maximum energy efficiency" for if nothing else wire can be installed that is larger, saving small amounts of energy. Skylights to be installed in every building to limit light production. Increased insulation in every building to limit heating and cooling. As in-ground heat pumps are probably the most efficient source of (electrical) heating/cooling, every building remodeled for that rather than furnaces or even air-air heat pumps.
We should also revamp our homes and some businesses to use 480 volts rather than 120, for it is many times more efficient. It is also the common voltage for industry for that very reason. We'll lose a few people each year, but I assume that won't matter to someone silly enough to demand "maximum energy efficiency in all buildings" without regard to cost.Was there a projection of when the project would begin and how long it would take?
Completed by 2050, with major improvements in 10 years. Thirty years to virtually replace every building, every power source and every piece of transportation. Typical pie-in-the-sky thinking without regard to reality, and that doesn't start to consider that the economy will be ruined in 10 years with her other foolish notions.
HA! She's only been in office for a month or so and you're already worrying about her other "foolish notions, Dan. Is she gonna do this from her present position or are you worried about her being POTUS one day?
30 years? Many buildings will need renovation even before 2050 as a matter of course. As will almost all autos and trucks. I assume you haven't had to repair or upgrade your home or trade or repair a vehicle for the last 30 years?
My home was built in 1972; it has never been renovated. It has minor repairs, done by myself, plus the addition of a heat pump to replace radiant heat in the ceilings. Oh, and I put some windows in, too.
It has not been re-wired, for instance, and the walls have not had the 2X4's yanked out and replaced with 2X6's and more insulation. And no, I have not done major repairs to any vehicle since I replaced an engine as a teen.
Are you of the opinion that we can change to all electric vehicles in the next 10 years or so? That the infrastructure can be built for that in just 10 years, including in the west where there may be 200 miles to the next gas station? Because if not then any car made after that will have to be junked in the next 20 rather than live out it's life span.Good for you, Dan. Not many people can keep a car for 30 years without replacing it. I'm impressed!
If our lives, and the lives of our children and grandchildren depend on it, of course we can! Unlike you, I have faith in those so much more intelligent than both you and I on climate change. The Manhatten Project and the Moon Race are simply two examples of a need-to-do.Have yet to reach 30 years, and hope I never do. But I did buy a pickup nearly new and drove it for 22 years before selling it. And have 2 vehicles, a 2000 motorhome and an 02 saturn, neither of which has ever had major repairs done.
Actually I doubt we could. The price to complete re-vamp our electrical grid and every building would be prohibitive. Don't forget that the change to 240 or 480 has to happen overnight, with all new distribution and every appliance in the nation. And that doesn't even address the building renovations or auto changes.
Yes, let's all freak out and assume that if this ever becomes law as currently written (it won't), it will be implemented in the most extreme and ineffective way possible. Let's assume the word "upgrade" means renovation because it would be too logical to think it could mean something as simple as, say, installation of motion detector lights or programmable thermostats.
Let's all jump directly to the worst possible scenario (remember death panels?) rather than have a rational discussion about (Gasp!) protecting the planet.
I'm sick of this crap already and it has barely started.No PrettyPanther, let's not "assume" any of that. Instead, let's dump the rhetoric of even pretending The New Green Deal is a realistic expectation to be argued about. It is a Utopian dream. Instead, we would be better served by discussing the pluses of considering its goals in small, feasible, and common sense steps.
We should be looking at realistic steps in the New Green Deal's direction. Stuff like motion-detector lights and programmable thermostats and ... oh, that was your point wasn't it? ;-)
Sorry kid, it's a slow night.
GAYet, most people accepted Space Force without questions.
Some even justify the need for it without having any idea what was proposed , because, of course, D Trump said it."Yet, most people accepted Space Force without questions."
Really IslandBites? I haven't seen anyone even speak of a "Space Force" as a serious entity. Where have you seen it accepted without question?
ps. I am commenting from memory, I readily admit my expectation that you will reply with a link to someone endorsing it. Don't disappoint me now.
GAWas the GPS system not designed and implemented for the military in the beginning? Was it not a part of a "space force"?
Which "Space Force" Wilderness? The original, (that relates to your GPS reference), or the new one Pres. Trump proposed?
GADon't know what Trump has proposed. If it is a new military branch to deal with space, I suppose it was even if not a part of that branch that did not exist then.
Personally, I view Trump's concept as just that; a branch of the military to deal with space. GPS, missiles stored in space, missile defense in space, whatever. Not a manned space station as it is, at this time, indefensible.
Officials plan to create a Space Operations Force – an “elite group of war fighters specializing in the domain of space” drawn from various branches of the military, in the style of existing special operations forces, Pence said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ed-to-know
CNN Poll
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/16/poli … index.html
American Barometer
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america … pace-force https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/340 … pace-forceHa, I was right! I knew you would come through. I even said so:
"I readily admit my expectation that you will reply with a link to someone endorsing it. "
But... as they say: For full disclosure, I too think a "Space Force" will be needed in our near future. However, I think it should be an expansion of our 1982 Air Force "Space Force" program. Not as a boots-on-the-ground military force, (like Starship Troopers), but as a tech-style unit. Which is not what I perceived Pres, Trump's Space Force to be.
Now, leave my cake alone.
GAI know Randy. But it feels so good when it stops.
GA
Really? From the resolution she's working on:
"A) To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emmissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers."
"C) Meeting 100% of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources, including"
That means no burning of any carbon based fuel. The only burning that can be done is burning pure hydrogen. It also means that no nuclear plants may be used, for Uranium is not renewable. As there are very few homes left that are total electric, it also means renovating very nearly all homes, businesses and industries. Notice that includes homes heated by wood - that produces CO2 and is unacceptable.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document … Deal-FINAL
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
AOC is correct. Tr ump's internment facilities meet the definition of concentration camp. That said, it would be better to focus on fixing the dangerous and illegal conditions in which Trump.is detaining men, women and children than to argue about what to call it.
AOC also used the phrase "Never Again" in relation to the Holocaust. Your comment and hers are a slap in the face to all the Jews who suffered persecution by Nazi Germany. But you will go glibly on your way, as if you actually know what you are talking about. How pathetic. I feel very sorry for you.
Have you visited those facilities? I didn't think so....and neither has AOC, even though she could easily do so. These children are fed and clothed; they're given toys, puzzles, cookies. Republicans have begged the Democrats for more money to help the immigrants while they are detained for 20 days or so, but Pelosi has stated she will not give another penny.
So spare me your "knowledge" about "illegal" conditions. If you're that worried about it, write to your Congressman or woman and have them lift a finger to help. They could fix this problem in an afternoon.I somehow missed this comment, but after reading it twice, I realized that you seem to be responding to things you imagined I said, not what I actually said. I just saw a report on the conditions at the facilities. Dozens of children now have the flu; they have gone weeks without a shower; and they are still being separated from their parents or adult caregivers. That s illegal.
Oh, I'm sorry, Pretty, did you not realize that these children are "rented out" from their original families for a small sum? Did you also not know that these children may be raped along the way to their long journey and that they are most certainly going to arrive dirty? And did you know they may have limited access to showers because the Democrats refuse to give president Trump more money to expand and improve the facilities?
Furthermore, did you not realize that these children were not vaccinated in their own countries before they traversed dangerous territory laid out by "Coyotes" who, in fact, charge a large fee.....upwards of $8000 per family (at least) to cross the border? Did you not know that said children have to be separated for a short time, for humanitarian reasons, once they reach the border, in an effort to somehow determine whether they are being trafficked....or whether they may need psychiatric care due to having been raped....or that they may be suffering trauma because the "family" they came with may not be their actual parents or family members after all? Did you not realize how common this occurrence is (that children are used as pawns to get across the border?) and how wrong it would be for any administration to turn a blind eye to the trafficking of young children?
Did you not know that a big part of illegal immigration is organized by DRUG CARTELS who TRAFFIC women and CHILDREN? Did you not know THAT? Apparently, you didn't know any of that.
So go ahead and agree with the likes of AOC. Because to tell you the truth, not only is she clueless, she is also anti-Semitic. Her statements were obscene and remain obscene.
Unfortunately, we have some Republicans here, who are ultra polite and who who are even willing to use the term "camp" which is beyond ridiculous. None of these illegal immigrants are being put to hard labor or tortured or anything else. Border Patrol and Ice and doing the best they can with the limited resources that the Democrats have allowed the president to have, even though he has asked for more money. Meanwhile, Pelosi, gets to sit back and gloat, knowing full well that her supporters are none the wiser because they don't bother to look deeper.
But of course, you will not believe any of that....until one day, maybe the s***t will hit the fan in your own life, and you will be forced to reconsider all that you thought was truth might have turned out to be one senseless, awful lie.
I hope one day, you will understand the real meaning of "illegal," in all of it's ramifications, as it pertains to our government. For now, you're just following along.... Sorry.I stopped reading in the middle of the second paragraph of your post. I have done nothing to you to justify the hostility in your post and, frankly, you sound unhinged. Maybe someone else will deem you worthy of their time.
It's Friday. Have a drink or smoke a bowl.. . . or smoke a bowl! Damn! I knew you were a kindred spirit.
ps. be sure to show this to your husband, I don't want any misunderstandings.
GA"stopped reading.....smoke a bowl?" I'll pass. I was trying to teach you about trafficking on the border. GA, who is probably much older, should know better, but I guess getting high is more important. Meanwhile the children you claim to care about are being trafficked.
How did you become so bitter? GA has more knowledge in his little finger than 90% of the posters here. Chill.out.
Yes, it's very apparent that GA is very intelligent, and he has great manners too...
Sharlee01....Yes. GA learned his manners in a barn, apparently. Anyway, appreciate your subtlety.
I do get very passionate, especially when it pertains to trafficked children and drug cartels. But the Dems turn a blind eye to this problem at the border for whatever strange reason.
In my state, the new Democratic governor removed border patrol along our southern border as soon as she was sworn in. Why? I can't even imagine why. We already have a drug problem in our state. Now it will be even worse because the cartels have free reign to come and go as they please. We had a few million dollars for projects needed around the state, but now it's being used to put illegal immigrants in hotels and feed them. The whole thing is mind-boggling.
But thanks for the good work you do on HP.In my opiniion, you pointed out the very problems the Dem's do not want to deal with. It is apparent you are very passionate about all the underlying horrific problems that are occurring due to the problem enforcing some kind of law at the border. It is clear in my opinion that President Trump is making every attempt to fix our growing immigration problems. It is also very clear he is being stonewalled by the Dem's in Congress. This is another thing many on this thread do not recognize. The president is being blocked at every turn.
Now the Dem's in Congress have decided to play the blame game for the immigration problems that have been around a very long time. Problems that no other president solved or appeared care to solve.
It is also clear many on this thread choose to overlook the Congress has not allocated funds that Trump has requested to help the very immigrants they claim are being treated so horribly. They claim they have no water, little food, that the facilities are filthy, and the children are in cages... I could go on and on. Yet very few have Congresspersons have visited facilities? (AOC can make a video in regards to the facility conditions, but has not set foot in one.) She should do her job and promote the funds to be allocated to help alleviate the conditions she is complaining about.
In my opinion, we need new immigration laws, and a wall to deter people from coming in illegally., and then ask for asylum. Do we as a nation need people pouring in? One would think all these big brains that hope to have open borders would have a look at our national debt and realize we can't afford to be so generous at this point in our history.Absolutely! The Democrats won't lift a finger to help solve the problem they claim to care so deeply about, which is why president Trump had no choice but to threaten tariffs on Mexico and basically force them to do more. (In reality, Mexico needed to do more.) Meanwhile, illegal immigrant children are still being used as pawns. Congress could fix this problem in a day. The hypocrisy of Democrats in Congress is astounding, but not surprising. They've been doing this song and dance for many decades.
Really? Child separation was a Trump Administration initiative to thwart people wanting to come to the US. And they applied that policy to those crossing illegally and those legally claiming asylum as a deterrent. That policy, which separated over 4,400 children, was found to be illegal by the courts and immoral by the United Nations. So who was using children as pawns? And how many died in US custody under the last administration? Not even close to the six in the last three years. So, aside from being cruel, they have proven to be fatally inept.
As for Congress fixing this problem in a day, Trump has proven he flip-flops so much from what he says to what he actually does, that he cannot be trusted to follow through with policy. Infrastructure is the easiest example. If Trump had any consistency with his behavior, perhaps Congress would have some trust that this request would be accomplished.
Of course, Trump's immigration policies are being stonewalled by Democrats. We see it each day. The shutdown was the result of Trump wanting to reform immigration policies. The immigration situation is way out of hand. Something has to be done regarding the immigration crisis. We can't let any person in America. Only people w/high skills & or education should be allowed to immigrate. There should be a moratorium on immigration until every American is gainfully employed & taken care of. AMERICANS FIRST!
The shutdown was the result of Trump's stupidity. It wasn't a fight he was going to win, but he got goaded by his trusty foreign policy advisers at Fox & Friends into doing something that only hurt the country. By trying something he had no leverage to accomplish, he set the economy back and had the worst December since the Great Depression. Since, job growth has slowed significantly with just 56,000 added in February and a projected 75,000 in May.
I'll give him credit, however, for getting Mexico off their butts to slow the flow of people from Central America. That's a positive move, for once.
Now how the hell did you make the stretch to bring me into your exchange with PrettyPanther? Was it the "smoke a bowl" thing? If so, then I would suggest you give it a try. Sometimes there can be serious regularity issues tied to such uptight perspectives. Geesh, give peace a chance. (damn, ROFLMAO, some times I crack myself up)
Reminds me of that line from Robin William's Good Morning Vietnam movie; You know, the line about that staff sergeant being in more need of a BJ than any white man in history. (oh buggers, I did it again - now I don't care who you are, that there's funny)
Lol, he knows about my forum friends. I keep him up to date on the goings on and he s familiar with you, Randy, wilderness, Jake, islandbites, and credence for sure, and maybe a couple more.
savvydating, Well said, However, you might want to consider some that post here don't think about the entire scenario. That the people that make the decision to cross our border illegally started out by making some decisions which are not only dangerous for them but also very dangerous for their children. Not to mention illegal. Appears some are not willing to consider the problems that occur long before the immigrates reach our border. You have certainly brought up some things, that no one wants to consider. But we need too...
Many of us tend to concentrate on playing the blame game... Ultimately the blame for ending up in one of our holding facilities is the fault of the person that made the decision to travel across in some cases several countries, and in some cases involve their children or a rented child, and illegally enter America.
I guess some find it easier to blame our government, instead of blaming the ones that are breaking our laws.For about the thousandth time, those seeking asylum are not breaking the law. Those caught crossing the border illegally are sent back to their home country.
They are not breaking the letter of the law, but they are certainly bending it to the breaking point. Most of those people either KNOW what they are asking will not be approved or have been convinced by liars that it will be.
And yes, they broke the law when they entered illegally, whether they immediately applied for asylum or not.Why should immigrants care about complying with US law, when the president of the United States doesn't?
There you go...all about Trump...your TDS is showing my friend.
Apparently you didn't get me banned for asking for a link, Jack. Still asking....
I've asked twice for a link confirming Alexandria Cortez said "Nazi" concentration camps. I think it's fair question because that is what you accused her of saying. So I ask a third time, please provide a source that proves Cortez used that term. Why is that difficult?
Trump is the current president, is he not? So I'd like someone to explain to me why an immigrant entering this country should care about complying with US law, when the president of the country does not?
As for "TDS". Cute. Should I start referring to your devotion as Trumpophillia (making you a Trumpophile) or shall we agree that such things are childish and not worthy of our time? I'll let you decide.That is insane logic. By that same thinking, what about all Americans? Because you suspect the President broke the law, we all get a pass? That is insanity. That is exactly why Trump Derangement Syndrome fits you.
What is the "insane logic" of asking for a link?
Check this out-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com … camps/amp/The question is quite clear Jack. Why should an immigrant entering the country care about complying with US law, when there is clear evidence that the president of the country does not? You haven't answered that question yet.
And if you want to apply the same question to everyone, go right ahead. Why should an ordinary citizen respect the rule of law, when the president and his administration consistently show contempt for it?
Helpful Hint: this may be related to why it's important for a president not to be seen routinely holding the law in contempt.
Thanks for the link. I did check it out, and what I found wasn't great.
1. Here is what Media Bias Fact Check says about your source:
"Founded in 2005, RT, originally Russia Today, is a television network funded by the Russian government."(1)
It's review of the site says:
"Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, promotion of conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks and a lack of author transparency."(2)
2. even that "questionable" source does not say Cortez used the term "Nazi" concentration camp.
So, comrade Jack, do you have a reliable source that directly quotes Cortez using that term? Or even a quote where she explicitly claims that is what she intended to mean?
(1) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
(2) ibid
Yes, we expect a president to tell the truth and not break our laws. We're insane!
All politicians lie one way or another. What laws did Trump break specifically?
If so, why didn’t they impeach him? That is how in our system a president is removed from office.
It happened to Bill Clintion.No POTUS has ever approached the number of lies Trump has told, and never will, Jack. Apparently Trump's fans love it as they're just like him, honesty wise.
And impeachment may be in Trump's future.Again, please provide a source that proves Cortez used the term "Nazi"? You still have not. Even the Russian propaganda site you linked to did not support your claim.
And why are you promoting a network funded by the Russian Government anyway. That network has been categorized as a "questionable" source by fact-checking sites, and described as "The Kremlin's propaganda outlet" by the Columbia Journalism Review(1)? That's who you're getting your information from now?
And if the rule of law is so important to you, when will you start calling for the government to stop holding the law in contempt? Again, why should anyone (let alone immigrants) respect the rule of law if the government itself does not?
(1) https://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_i … _today.phpDon, you can rationalize your defense of AOC anyway you like.
The fact is, at minimum she is clueless and ignorant. At worst, she is deliberately trying undermine our own government being a member of Congress. In which case, it is treason. What would you call it?
Her comments on the concentration camp is in context with previous statements calling Trump fascist and comparing him to Hitler...
She has no understanding of history and our Constitution and our system of justice.
I gave her the benefit of doubt when she was first elected but no more. Go back and read the beginning of this forum...which I started.
Have a great weekend and reflect on that.
Yes we have first amendment rights to free speech and so does AOC. She can say whatever is on her mind. Then, she needs to be held accountable just like any other politician. Or is that rule only apply to Republicans?In other words, you don't have a source that has her referring to "Nazi" concentration camps after all, you just interpreted her remarks to mean that.
That raises the question, why do you continue to interpret her remarks that way after she has already said:
"And for the shrieking Republicans who don’t know the difference: concentration camps are not the same as death camps. Concentration camps are considered by experts as 'the mass detention of civilians without trial.' And that’s exactly what this administration is doing."
Which part of that statement is unclear?
So Cortez made a statement, saw it being misinterpreted, made a clarifying statement.
You misinterpreted Cortez's statement, promoted a state-funded Russian propaganda network to support your misinterpretation, and now continue to deliberately misinterpret that statement because (for reasons known only to you) you want to foment outrage against Cortez.
Who do you think comes across as the "clueless and ignorant" person in all this Jack? I can tell you it's not Cortez.
And why are you so obsessed with her anyway? Maybe it will help if I use your own vernacular. You seem to be suffering from Ocasio-Cortez Derangement Syndrome (OCDS).
The current administration flouts federal and international law, and attacks and undermines the Constitution on what seems like a daily basis, and you're suggesting that a freshman Congresswoman who (rightly) points out that these immigration centres meet the definition of concentration camps, is committing "treason". And you do that while spreading links from Russia Today? Come on Jack. None of that is reasonable or sensible.
So what's going on?
Lots of Democrats say lots of things that you must disagree with all the time, so why do you find Cortez the most threatening? What's this really all about?
(1) https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1140990518974976000Apparently, you didn’t take the time to read the start of this forum going back a few months. It would answer your question on why I am focused on her in particular...though I speak and comment about many politicians in the limelight including Trump and Obama and Hillary...
To save you time, she went to the same high school as my son in Yorktown NY. I was trying to help her in the beginning...but now it has long past help but embarrassment.So, once again you cannot furnish a source for your claims, Jack?
I see, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure Cortez is a regular of the Hubpages forum (though I could be wrong) so I fear your advice to her may have been in vain.
Either way, Cortez clarified she was not referring to death camps.
"Again, why should anyone (let alone immigrants) respect the rule of law if the government itself does not?"
Good point. Why should they respect the law when Obama granted amnesty and created a massive second class citizenry in violation of immigration laws?"Good point. Why should they respect the law when Obama granted amnesty and created a massive second class citizenry in violation of immigration laws?"
If you think granting "amnesty" is reason not to respect the law, then how much less respect should people have when the current administration routinely violates the law?
So when will you call on the government to start complying with federal and international law?I think ignoring the law and allowing illegals to remain without fear of being deported is reason not to respect the law.
How about you - do you find Obama's decision to grant amnesty and allow tens of thousands of illegals to violate our laws daily to be a reason not to respect our laws? Or did sympathy and compassion rule the day rather than the law?"I think ignoring the law and allowing illegals to remain without fear of being deported is reason not to respect the law."
Before continuing, I advise you to check the statistics showing levels of deportations under the previous administration, compared to levels of deportations under Trump. Then let me know if you still want to pursue this line of argument. I don't mind if you do, I'm just giving you a preview of where it will go, to save us both some time.
In the meantime, let's not pussy foot around. Let's be frank. And I invite Jack and Sharlee01 to contribute as well.
If you and the others on this thread, are so concerned about the rule of law, why have I never seen any of you calling for the government to start complying with federal and international law in relation to how asylum seekers are being treated? Does the law only matter to you when immigrants are breaking it?
And are you happy to accept government breaking the law, as long as it means less asylum seekers entering the country? If so, how much government lawbreaking are you willing to accept in pursuit of that goal?
Maybe the one about travel from terrorist supporting countries that don't vet their people? Liberal courts didn't like it but the SCOTUS found it reasonable.
Or the one that says anyone crossing the border illegally must be taken care of - like they're doing at the England-France chunnel.Good one... I just hope to have an answer to my question, and facts to back it up. What I will most likely get is a deflect, to knows what.. Might Trump is a spy for Putin or more about the Mueller report. Perhaps maybe the Trump Jr. in Russian meeting. Yeah, that's always a good one to fall back on. Better yet maybe I will just be called an insulting name. I sometimes wonder if some that post here don't ever realize all are not laughing with them but at them?
And another thing, have you ever noted some just always stay around the outer fluff of a given problem? Never really wanting to look deeper into the ugly center... Never getting into or facing causation or even considering problems can be fixed. No, they just float above it all...My money is on the insulting name. It seems the most common when a truthful answer won't work.
Great logic. Two wrongs always make a right... A+ for showing a good example of a liberals thought process. Your opinion is duly noted.
Well, you know, just like Trump, his followers demand swift and severe punishment for the poor and disadvantaged but look the other way when the rich and powerful steal, cheat, lie, and commit felonies.
Do you actually feel you have the right to judge all that support Trump? I would love to know how you obtained that right?
In this thread, you specifically stated asy!um seekers should be warned they will be detaIned, presumably for weeks on end without the basic minimum care afforded by law, since that is what is happening. The Trump administration is violating federal and international law and you haven't stated they need to be detained or suffer any consequences for their violation of the law. I'm fact, you are defending Trump while advocating putting children in cages.
Jack, another Trump defender, says the asylum seekers, including children, "deserve"this treatment.
Two different standards.How long has the encampment been at the French end of the chunnel? Other mass encampments of would-be immigrants?
Doesn't seem like anyone is following that international law...except those that don't have thousands of people trying to get into and change their country.Sure, and it's okay with you and other Trump defenders, just like I said.
Yes it is. I feel no obligation to support the world, even for the months it takes to gain refugee status...for the small percentage that manage to do so. And take exception to the idea that you DO feel that obligation...using my pocketbook to do so.
But if you don't like Trump being unable to push thousands upon thousands of illegals through the court system the obvious answer is to have congress hire more judges and courtrooms; blaming Trump for lack of funding when he has no ability to provide it is a little silly, isn't it?He can take the money from already approved projects like he wanted to do for the wall funding. You were in favor of that, weren't you?
To be clear, I feel no "obligation" to take care of the refugees while they are awaiting decision about their status. I simply feel it is the humane, and ultimately beneficial, thing to do.
As for the rest,I'd be thrilled if Trump would declare a humanitarian crisis at the border and request the funds and resources necessary to address it. Has he done so, like he did for his "emergency"wall funds?
And, I agree, Congress should do something.May 1, 2019 the Trump AD. did declare a humanitarian crisis? The Dem's claimed there was no such crisis.
He requested 4.5 billion in May 2019. This was the first major move by the White House to respond to what it calls a “humanitarian crisis” at the Southern border that intensifies an ongoing funding battle over border security. Not sure if you recall the same claims were made in regards to the humanitarian crisis four months earlier that led to the 35-day government shutdown.
The funds still to this day have not been voted on by the Congress... Last time I counted the Congress has a majority of Democrats. This lack of acting on this horrendous crisis is on them. Guess they talk a good humanitarian game, but do little to help.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ … on-1296437
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics … index.html
I certainly did state an opinion. I was discussing the possibility with Wilderness of warning asylum seeker of the fact they will be held in custody in a facility per our laws... In my opinion, it would act as a deterrent to some that might not actually have a legitimate need for asylum. It also would act to provide actual asylum seekers of our process. the truth about what they face when requestion The Trump administration has the right to enforce our current laws. I have listed the current law as well as a link that would be helpful in providing you facts on this subject.
" and you haven't stated they need to be detained or suffer any consequences for their violation of the law. " And why would I? LOL
This comment would be hard to respond too. It just does not make any sense?
In regards to children, Any children that accompany their parents will also be held. At this point with their parents. There is no longer the separation of children from parents. There are children that cross on their own, they are also held for their own safety until accommodations can be found.
Perhaps you could list the what federal and international law te Trump Ad, are violating? Please list resources. Please read the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)
"Are asylum seekers released before their immigration court hearings?
It depends. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires all individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry to be detained. They remain in detention even after officials confirm their claims as credible unless the officials decide the applicants are unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat. In addition, they must pay bail, which they often cannot afford. If released, many asylum seekers are monitored by GPS ankle bracelets. Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings.
If officials determine the applicants’ claims are not credible, the asylum seekers are ordered for “expedited removal” and do not receive an immigration court hearing.
Under prior administrations, immigration authorities regularly released migrants from custody while their cases were pending in the immigration court system. Those migrants were still required to check in with immigration authorities and attend hearings in immigration court. The Trump administration has modified these policies to release as few asylum seekers as possible. A recent federal court decision requiring case-by-case determinations as to whether asylum seekers pose a flight risk or threat to public safety is likely to lead to more releases pending their hearings."
Resourse
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/I think anyone that is thinking of coming to ask for asylum should be well educated on the possible procedures that will or could be enforced. They can then make an educated decision. Just is fair in my opinion.
You know what... I did not call for any form of punishment. I called for at this point for Dem's that have the majority in Congress to cough up with humanitarian funds needed to help these people. Read my posts. As I said we have a problem with humanitarian conditions. As usual, some deflect into laws, and more... Sick of having ridiculous accusations being thrown my way. Please don't bother combing through each and everything I stated. Some of my comments were most certainly just opinions on what I feel could be done to fix the immigration problems. Perhaps you should not put all Trump supporters in the same basket? You know the one Hillary put in the basket of "deplorable". In my opinion, when someone puts all into one basket, it makes them sound short-sighted.
"Great logic. Two wrongs always make a right... A+ for showing a good example of a liberals thought process. Your opinion is duly noted."
So you think complying with the rule of law is important. Great, we agree on something. So when will you start calling for the government to comply with federal and international law?
Or are you suggesting the rule of law should not be applied equally, and is only important when it relates to penalizing immigrants? If so, that's an odd approach to take to the rule of law.Your original post, the post I replied too...
"Why should immigrants care about complying with US law, when the president of the United States doesn't?"
Please offer a direct link whereas our Government under the Trump administration has not or has broken "comply with federal and international law?" You need not be lengthy, just even one example. Please, show and list the law that was broken. Please do not add media jibberish. States facts. I will be very interested in seeing what you come up with.I'll try to be as clear as possible.
The laws I linked to in a previous comment (1) say:
Anyone who enters the country may claim asylum, even if they entered the country illegally.
If someone claims asylum, they can't be deported or punished for entering the country illegally.
If their claim is successful, they can stay in the country without being prosecuted, even if they entered the country illegally. If their claim is not successful, they can be prosecuted for illegal entry and deported.
Donald Trump's administration announced a "zero tolerance" policy where people crossing the border illegally are criminally prosecuted, regardless of whether they are claiming asylum. Jeff Sessions said: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple."
This policy is illegal, because the law says you can't punish people for crossing the border illegally to claim asylum.
The White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and Jeff Sessions, also said that separating children from their parents is part of the measures they are taking to deter people from crossing the border illegally.
The policy of separating families seeking asylum, to punish them and deter others, is illegal because the law says you can't impose penalties like that on people who are seeking asylum.
If you need further clarification on any of these points, let me know.
My questions to you, wilderness and Jack are:
If you are concerned about the rule of law, why have I never seen any of you calling for the government to start complying with federal and international law in relation to how asylum seekers are being treated (see above)?
Does the law only matter when immigrants are breaking it?
Are you happy to accept government breaking the law, as long as it means less asylum seekers entering the country?
If so, how much government lawbreaking are you willing to accept in pursuit of that goal?
(1) https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4082453I have to ask you have you followed this thread from the beginning? Does it appear you have not or has Don? I have made every attempt to explain my OPINION. I also have listed facts in the form of actually standing law. And copy and pasted the law several times. I have assured him I have an understanding of the asylum process, as well as what is legal in regards to detaining anyone that applies for asylum. Don is shooting from the hip. He has not posted any form of resource that can back up his claims that the Trump ad. broke any laws in regards to his immigration process. My opinion is just that, the laws are the laws. He continues to repeat over and over, and over the fact that if an immigrant is on US soil they can apply for asylum. I agreed multiple times ... Although the standing laws dictate they are detained until processed. It seems you jump in with a vague statement frequently? It would seem to me one must follow a conversation to be able to judge the conversation.
Whatever? All Don needs to do is post a statute to prove his claim. I am still waiting. I would think he would, I offered an apology if I am wrong... Don needs to prove his propaganda has merit... Not sure why you comment, when you are not adding anything of value? yeah, whatever.
It seems no one from the left posts anything of value to you, Shar.
This is not true. I think we have even agreed on many subjects. I certainly realize as a rule our views differ, but not on everything.
Flew right over your head, just like the third or fourth iteration of those laws you requested from Don. Your replies often seem as though you didn't even read what you're replying to. That is why we stop wasting our time, but if you prefer to think you chased us off, enjoy your delusion.
Yes, I can see why you might think it "flew over my head" due to jumping in ten pages into a conversation. As a rule, you just make a snarky comment, that has little to no relevance to the conversation. As I recommended read the thread if you hope to understand my comments. Don, literally has posted the very information I agreed with ages ago. I did not want to be rude, but perhaps you need to follow a thread before commenting.
I totally agree. People are ruled too much by emotions...
This forum has taken a life of its own. I am not sure it serves any purpose.
Hubpages forum is a great way to air differences. However, my own experience is that after a few back and forth exchanges, no one is convinced one way or another. Perhaps, the solution is to put a time limit on each forum. It should close after 30 days. Perhaps I will suggest this to HP staff. It would help reduce some of the controversies.
Have a great day!Jack, I want to be very clear about what you are saying, because I don't want to misinterpret you.
Are you saying that because the immigration system is broken (and I agree that it is broken) you are comfortable with the government complying only with laws that it deems to be politically helpful?
If that's not what you're saying, please clarify because I don't want to respond to what I think you're saying, if that's based on a misunderstanding.No, that is not what I am saying.
Because the system is broken, and Congress is not able to pass new legislation or rewrite old registration to take this new reality into account, we are left with doing the best we can under the circumstance. This includes people like ICE who are in the front lines dealing with this crisis on a daily basis.
The Democrats are happy to use this issue to hit Trump over the head...
They have actively inhibited any solution by stopping funding the wall or re writing our immigration to deal with people just showing up claiming asylum and using children...
Same goes with DACA, and anchor babies and Kate’s law...
Nothing is happening to try and solve this growing problem.
In fact, they are inciting more people to come here illegally and claiming they have every right to do so.
Groups like George Soros funded, are paying people and providing logistics and prep to help these people subvert our system.
What do you expect?
The only other alternative, is to catch and release...which was what the last administration did. 90% of those never come back to show up for their hearings. What does that tell you?More propaganda, Jack. The govt reports almost 90% showing up for their hearings. Where the heck do you get your numbers, Limbaugh and Hannity?
Bogus as is your normal posts."Groups like George Soros funded, are paying people and providing logistics and prep to help these people subvert our system."
Please prove it.Good luck with that! I tried for a couple of days to get him to post a link to one of his claims. He'll dart and dodge before doing anything to prove his claims, like the other Trump fans.
This is actually a short list.
List of projects supported by George Soros
Political organizations
Founded or helped to found
Open Society Foundations[1]
New America[2]
Supported
Black Lives Matter[3]
Best for Britain[4][5]
European Movement UK[6]
Scientists for EU[6][7]
Media Matters for America[8]
Center for Public Integrity[9]
Human Rights Watch[10]
Priorities USA Action[11]
American Bridge 21st Century[11]
America Votes[11][12]
Millennium Promise[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … orge_Soros
"Because the system is broken, and Congress is not able to pass new legislation or rewrite old registration to take this new reality into account, we are left with doing the best we can under the circumstance."
But Congress can pass new legislation. It just needs compromise. And that starts with the political bases.
If Trump announced he was scaling down plans for the wall in exchange for some concession from Democrats, you and wilderness would go crazy. If Pelosi agreed funding for the wall in exchange for a major concession from Trump, the left, including me probably would go crazy. And of course the big fear is that this sentiment will be reflected in the ballot box.
That's good in a way, as it demonstrates the power of The People, but it also means Trump and the Republicans can't compromise, and neither can Pelosi and the Democrats. So it all comes down to the polarization of views, which we know has gotten worse.
As an experiment Jack, what would you accept in exchange for giving up The Wall? Same question to you wilderness, if you're around.
I have read the entire thread. That's how I knew that your request that Don provide a link to the laws being violated by the Trump administration was so strange, given that they had already been provided multiple times.
Then you might have seen I posted them first. And he pretty much said much of what I have said over, and over...Do I in any respect believe you read this thread? Although, maybe the audience you pander to believes you? And I could care less.
Let me once again clarify my comments to you. I am very aware of immigration laws that have been discussed on this thread. I have no argument with what you posted in this comment. As I have explained I was having a conversation with Wilderness in regards to possible solutions that might deter some immigrants from crossing illegally. You are deciphering my opinion. It is clear you disagree.is fine. Your opinion is duly noted.
I never said people that seek asylum once on American soil are breaking the law. If I gave you that impression please realize I know the law and have posted a good link that covers just about all of your above comment. Once again here is the law on coming into the country at any given place other than our legal border crossings. And yes if the parent is imprisoned children would need to be separated.
Copy and paste
""§1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/1994/ti … i/sec1325/
So I am not sure why you dispute this law? Trump has the right to enforce this law. Yes, it did not work out well... But he was not breaking the law. In regards to holding all that crossed illegally, he did hold all. He also gave all the opportunity to. make asylum claims.
The plan certainly did not work.... And he is back to catch process and release.
I must add, it is not against the law to detain persons presenting themselves on US soil for a given length of time. Here is the current law. No, we do not enforce it.
"Are asylum seekers released before their immigration court hearings?
It depends. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires all individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry to be detained (DETAINED). They remain in detention even after officials confirm their claims as credible unless the officials decide the applicants are unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat. In addition, they must pay a bail, which they often cannot afford. If released, many asylum seekers are monitored by GPS ankle bracelets. Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings."
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/
This law enabled Trump to separate children from their parents. I did not agree with that policy. I do not think he broke the law by detaining asylum seekers until their cases could be heard. This law would certainly lead to the separation of children while they were incarcerated., Let me repeat, I did not approve of separation.
"The policy of separating families seeking asylum, to punish them and deter others, is illegal because the law says you can't impose penalties like that on people who are seeking asylum." Please provide me with the law that would have been in place when Trump initiated separation of children from a detained parent. I do realize On June 26, 2018, US District Judge Dana Sabraw of the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the family separation policy and ordered that all children be reunited with their parents within 30 days. Prior to this court decision Trump on June 20, 2019, issued an order to stop the separation of children from their parents.Treat this as the reply to all three of your responses to my previous comment.
I already provided links to the laws I referenced in a previous comment, so it's not clear why you keep saying I haven't. I even linked back to that comment for your benefit. I'll link to them again here in a way that is more obvious, and include some additional links that you may find useful.
The main federal law relating to immigration is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which sits under Title 8 of the United States Code.
This is the same law you referred to. The section you referred to was "Improper entry by alien". I am referring to the section called "Asylum".
That section is what gives asylum seekers the authority to claim asylum, regardless of how they enter the country. But you have said you are already aware of that and have no argument with it. So I won't labor the point. For your reference, the relevant section can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
The main international law relating to immigration is the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of that law says:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10
Some people suggest there are two get-out clauses there. The "coming directly from a territory . . ." and "present themselves without delay . . ." but that misses the point.
The point is not whether a specific individual is eligible for asylum status. The point is that in order to comply with the law, an individual's claim for asylum must be determined first.
Imposing penalties on people without knowing if they are eligible for asylum, inevitably means imposing penalties on people who are in fact eligible for asylum. That is what the Trump administration has decided to do:
"If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple".
https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1008 … 29?lang=en
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 1/download
That policy makes it impossible to comply with the law, and almost certain that penalties are being imposed on people in violation of the law.
Another point some people make is that "prosecution" is not a penalty, but prosecution is what the countries who drafted the law (including the United States) had in mind when they referred to "penalties":
"The term ‘penalties’ is not defined in Article 31, but the drafters appear to have had in mind measures such as prosecution, fine and imprisonment;"
https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf (p.9)
The idea that prosecution is a penalty can also be found in some domestic law:
"Declination to file charges for document fraud committed by refugees at the time of entry. The [Immigration and Naturalization] Service shall not issue a Notice of Intent to Fine for acts of document fraud committed by an alien pursuant to direct departure from a country in which the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution or from which there is a significant danger that the alien would be returned to a country in which the alien would have a well founded fear of persecution, provided that the alien has presented himself or herself without delay to an INS officer and shown good cause for his or her illegal entry or presence."
So criminal prosecution is clearly deemed to be a penalty, and international law prohibits penalties being imposed on asylum seekers who enter a country illegally.
Also, the Trump administration has explicitly stated it is prosecuting asylum seekers as a punitive measure to deter others from crossing the border. In other words it is prosecuting people as punishment, in the hope it will stop others doing the same. That's not compliant with the law.
The Trump administration has also advised asylum officers that illegal entry may count against asylum applicants:
"Specifically, USCIS personnel may find an applicant’s illegal entry, including any intentional evasion of U.S. authorities, and including any conviction for illegal entry where the alien does not demonstrate good cause for the illegal entry, to weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion."
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fil … of-A-B.pdf (p.8)
That is a penalty being imposed on asylum seekers who have entered the country illegally, and it is a violation of the law.
The Trump administration has also explicitly said it is seperating families as part of punitive measures intended to deter others.
https://www.justsecurity.org/61621/proo … unishment/
That motivation renders the separation a punishment, and therefore also against the law as described above.
To be clear, if the administration were prosecuting and deporting people after their asylum claims had been processed and they were found to be ineligible, the actions above would not violate the law. Likewise, detaining people who cross the border illegally does not necessarily break the law.
But the government is not doing that. It's imposing penalties on people before their eligibility for asylum has been decided, so is inevitably penalizing people eligible for asylum. That does not comply with the law as it currently stands.
It's my view, that these violations of the law are wrong because of the impact they have on those asylum seekers who are already vulnerable.
And also because, when government's break the law, it's more damaging to the rule of law than when an individual does. This is because government's role of enforcing requires trust. If the government is actively breaking the law itself, it undermines public trust both in government and in the rule of law.
If you need further clarity on any of the points raised here, I'd be delighted to help.
Note: I've deliberately restricted this comment to violations of immigration-related law only. Other violations of the law by the current administration have not been included, to reduce the length as much as possible, but together they form a pattern of behavior that demonstrates a contempt for the rule of law.
Now I'll repeat my questions to you, Jack and wilderness:
1. If you are concerned about the rule of law, why have I never seen any of you calling for the government to start complying with the law in relation to how asylum seekers are being treated?
2. Do you believe the law only matters when immigrants are breaking it?
3. Are you happy to accept government breaking the law, as long as it means less asylum seekers entering the country?
4. If so, how much government lawbreaking are you willing to accept in pursuit of that goal?
I look forward to your respective answers.Don, the laws on asylum and immigration was never intended for caravans of people crossing Mexico and showing up on our doorstep.
It is meaningless to discuss this and other laws that we ignore or break on a daily basis.
For all intent and purpose, we have a broken immigration system and no laws whether existing or otherwise will be sufficient to deal with it.
In addition, the people trying to cross our borders are very smart and have figured it out to skirt our enforcement and use our own laws to their benefit...
Does this make sense?
Do you understand the problem we are facing?
If not, discussing this with you any further is just a waste of my time and yours."The main international law relating to immigration is the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of that law says:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10"
Don, This is where you are misunderstanding our law or one might call it procedure. There is a procedure for processing persons applying for asylum. his procedure requires a time of detainment until a case is filed. The asylum seeker then is released to await a decision on if they qualify for asylum. It well appears this is where we disagree. I feel we need these procedures, you feel it is a form of punishment.
"Are asylum seekers released before their immigration court hearings?
It depends. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires all individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry to be detained. They remain in detention even after officials confirm their claims as credible unless the officials decide the applicants are unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat. In addition, they must pay bail, which they often cannot afford. If released, many asylum seekers are monitored by GPS ankle bracelets. Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings.
If officials determine the applicants’ claims are not credible, the asylum seekers are ordered for “expedited removal” and do not receive an immigration court hearing."
Legally anyone seeking asylum can be detained by law. Once again here is the link.
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/
It is clear you feel this is a form of punishment and where you feel the Trump AD. is breaking the law.
In laymen's terms, where do you feel the Zero Tolerance policy was breaking the law?
"Imposing penalties on people without knowing if they are eligible for asylum, inevitably means imposing penalties on people who are in fact eligible for asylum. That is what the Trump administration has decided to do:
"If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple".
The key word " unlawfully" Our laws protect asylum seekers, and it was never Session's intend to prosecute anyone that was seeking asylum. ZeroTorence was intended to detain any and all that crossed the border, and at that point determine any true claims for asylum. No laws were broken in regards to detaining any and all that entered. Anyone that was not seeking asylum was eligible to be prosecuted under our current laws for entering illegally. Persons applying for asylum were treated as our laws allow.
Not sure where you feel persons that applied for asylum were open to prosecution? It is apparent you read the Zero Tolerance policy.
And yes, if an asylum seeker can't fit the criteria for asylum they stand to be deported. They are not prosecuted for their effort to enter without the true need for asylum.
We were in agreement that children were being separated from parents. This was due to overcrowding and lack of facilities to house families. Would you suggest we just release any and all into the country without any form of the process? When the cup is full, it is full...
1. I feel the government is following our immigration laws.
2. No the are laws should be followed by all.
3. I in no way feel any laws have been broken in regards to immigration policies, in fact, Trump has made an attempt to enforce our laws.
4. Let me repeat I don't believe any laws have been broken. You seem to feel due to Zero tolerance asylum seekers are being prosecuted, there is no evidence of this.
You're taking much of zero tolerance out of context.
.I agree that immigration law allows for people seeking asylum to be detained to some degree, even before their eligibility for asylum is established. So that alone is not the issue.
There are four issues:
1. The Trump administration is illegally trying to prevent people from claiming asylum in the first place, unless they do so from a point of entry.
We agreed that federal law allows people who enter the country to claim asylum, regardless of how they entered the country. Yet on November 9, 2018 the Trump administration issued a proclamation banning people from claiming asylum unless they do so at a port of entry:
"Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry" (my emphasis).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … ed-states/
If you are unsure if this is legal, here is what the Immigration and Nationality Act says about claiming asylum:
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title" (my emphasis)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
If you are still not sure if that proclamation violates the law, this is what the presiding judge who issued an injunction against the ban said after the administration was sued by the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Centre:
"The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry United States District Court Northern District of California irreconcilably conflicts with the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and the expressed intent of Congress. Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden. Defendants' claims that the rule can somehow be harmonized with the INA are not persuasive".
And if you are still unsure whether the current administration holds the law in contempt, here is its response to that ruling:
"Appearing to contravene an order given by a federal judge last year, President Donald Trump issued a 90-day extension Thursday night on his order that denies asylum to people who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally".
https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-ex … -december/
However, as per the ACLU:
"The Trump administration has issued this extension of its draconian asylum ban, but the ban remains illegal and is still blocked by the courts"
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/acl … asylum-ban
That case is still going through the courts, but as things stand Trump's asylum ban is currently illegal.
2. Asylum seekers are being punished unlawfully.
I'm not mistaken about what the administration's "zero tolerance" meant. It meant prosecuting everyone who crossed the border illegally, regardless of whether they were claiming asylum or not. If you are unclear on this, here is an excerpt from a Congressional Research Service Report:
"On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy under which all illegal border crossers apprehended between U.S. ports of entry would be criminally prosecuted for illegal entry or illegal re-entry. This policy made no exceptions for asylum seekers and/or family units."
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf (p.7)
Under this policy people were not merely detained as you suggest. They were charged with a criminal offense, placed in criminal detention centres, and prosecuted. In fact that was the pretext the administration used to separate families from children. The argument was that people who are in jail awaiting prosecution (or serving a sentence) cannot retain custody of their children:
"Consequently, if a family unit was apprehended crossing illegally between ports of entry, the zero tolerance policy mandated that CBP refer all illegal adult entrants to DOJ for criminal prosecution. Accompanying children, who are not permitted to be housed in adult criminal detention settings with their parents, were to be processed as unaccompanied alien children . . ."
And all of this was happening before eligibility for asylum was established. In fact, if asylum seekers are convicted they are forced to serve their sentence before being allowed to apply for asylum:
" . . . after adults have been tried in federal courts for illegal entry—and if convicted have served their criminal sentences—they are transferred to ICE custody and placed in immigration detention. Typically, parents are then reunited in ICE family detention facilities with their children who have either remained in ORR custody or have been placed with a sponsor. Requests for asylum can also be pursued at this point."
This means people eligible for asylum were inevitably subjected to punishment that included their children being removed from their custody. The law prohibits imposing penalties on asylum seekers. So that policy violated the law.
If there is still any doubt about this:
"The 1951 Convention establishes a regime of rights and responsibilities for refugees. In most cases, only if an individual’s claim to refugee status is examined before he or she is affected by an exercise of State jurisdiction (for example, in regard to penalization for ‘illegal’ entry), can the State be sure that its international obligations are met.
Just as a decision on the merits of a claim to refugee status is generally the only way to ensure that the obligation of non refoulement is observed, so also is such a decision essential to ensure that penalties are not imposed on refugees, contrary to Article 31 of the 1951 Convention"
https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf (p.2)
So I don't think I'm taking "zero tolerance" out of context, and I think the above demonstrates the Trump administration has violated both federal and international law.
So I'm glad you believe the laws should be followed by all. I do too, and I think that's doubly important when it comes to the government. Trump may well have tried to enforce certain laws, but enforcing certain laws by breaking others defeats the object.
I agree with Jack, the system is broken. But the way to address that is not by breaking the law in the ways described above. It's by making a deal in Congress and getting immigration reform done.
To be clear that means compromise on both sides. But the Trump administration and Republicans can only begin to compromise if their base allows them to. That's you, Jack and wilderness.
Are you prepared to call for the government to stop violations of immigration laws, and make other concessions on immigration, in exchange for the opposition doing the same? Surely that's the only sensible way forward.What penalties do you feel were imposed on asylum seekers under Zero Tolerance? I think this is where we have different views?
I never disputed any of the above in your comment regards to the asylum seeker. Trump has broken no law by detaining them no matter how they came into the states if apprehended sneaking in they can still apply for asylum. However, Zero Tolerance.all were apprehended that crossed at places that were not designated ports of entry. Asylum seekers sorted and detained at facilities until processed.
Session's Zero tolerance was meant for those ascertained to be just sneaking in and had no claim to asylum. All asylum seekers would have still been heard after being detained, applied, and eventually, due to overcrowding, they are now being released to await a decision. If denied they are scheduled for deportation. Zero Tolerance was not the best policy, rounding up all and then ascertaining asylum status However, an asylum seeker was given the opportunity to make their claims.
I no longer plan to discuss this subject with you. It is very apparent we are looking at the same laws and policies and have a different opinion on them."What penalties do you feel were imposed on asylum seekers under Zero Tolerance? I think this is where we have different views?"
I'm not sure I can say it any clearer, but I'll try.
It's against the law to punish people who are claiming asylum. The only way to comply with that law is to find out if someone is eligible for asylum before you try to punish them for illegal entry.
A report from Congress confirms that the Trump administration was punishing people before they were even allowed to apply for asylum.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf
So I will break that down for you:
- Person A and their children are apprehended at the border by the CPB (legal)
- Person A and their children are detained and taken into custody by the CPB (legal)
- Person A is immediately charged with crossing the border illegally, referred to the DoJ for prosecution, and their children removed from their custody, to deter others from crossing the border illegally. These are all penalties and they are imposed on Person A before they have even been allowed to apply for asylum. That leads to a violation of the law.
- Person A is convicted of crossing the border illegally and sentenced. This is a penalty, and it is imposed before Person A has even been allowed to apply for asylum. That leads to violation of the law.
- Person A serves a custodial sentence for illegal border crossing. This is a penalty, and it is imposed before Person A has even been allowed to apply for asylum. That leads to violation of the law.
- Person A, after serving their sentence, is reunited with their children (if the the government can trace where the children are) (legal)
- Person A and their children are sent to an ICE detention facility (questionable legality but we'll let it slide)
- Person A is finally allowed to apply for asylum (legal)
Is that clearer, or is there some other way I can break it down for you?
The facts, when understood, indicate that the government has inevitably broken the law. If people are not willing to condemn the government for breaking the law, then on what moral ground do they condemn immigrants who do the same?Don, what you described is a hypothetical that never happened in real life. If you have a case of this happening, please present the facts. I have never heard of it.
In fact, most of the asylum seekers are bogus. They are here for economic reasons, not political. The fact that we have to give them a hearing is a joke.Sorry, I didn't see that you had replied earlier.
"what you described is a hypothetical . . ."
It's not a "hypothetical". It's exactly the situation as described in this Congressional report.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf
If you have evidence from a reliable source that the report is inaccurate, present it here and I will happily consider it.
"In fact, most of the asylum seekers are bogus. They are here for economic reasons, not political. The fact that we have to give them a hearing is a joke."
1. Ineligible and bogus are different things. Every bogus claim is ineligible. Not every ineligible claim is bogus.
2. The "zero tolerance" policy started in April 2017 (a year earlier than the administration said) and is still officially in place as of 2019, but to a lesser degree.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 794324002/
So the only way for the government to have not broken the law, is if 100% of the people who crossed the border illegally in the last 2 year period are found to be ineligible for asylum. In other words, it would mean that no people at all who crossed the border illegally for 2 years were eligible for asylum.
According to the government's own figures, in FY 2016/17 20,455 (28%) applications for asylum were granted. In 2017/18 26,568 (19%) asylum applications were granted. No complete figures for 2018/19. That's roughly 1704 and 2214 per month respectively.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2016_0.pdf
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … s_2017.pdf
What do you think the likelihood is that the number of people eligible for asylum will go from over 20,000 per year to 0, and remain at 0 during the 2 years "zero tolerance" has been in operation? Honestly Jack how likely do you think that is?
On the basis of those figures, it's inconceivable that no person prosecuted for illegal entry over the last 2 years is eligible for asylum. Therefore it's inconceivable that the government has not broken the law with it's "zero tolerance" policy. QED.
3. Whether you think it's a "joke" or not is irrelevant. It's the law. If you refuse to condemn the government for breaking the law, which it almost certainly has, then you have invalidated any argument about the necessity to prosecute immigrants in order to uphold the rule of law.
I started reading your long post until I came across the ACLU and the SPLC and then I just couldn’t continue.
You lost me.
These are the two most extreme progressive organizations that are using the law to gain their agenda.
They are not interested in the law but only to use it to hammer others into submission. They are anti American group and the founder Roger Baldwin was a communist.
The SPLC recently had its own scandal and many top officials were forced to resign...
So don’t tell me about the law when our laws are clearly inadequate...
You can continue to claim Trump broke the law but I will use Jesus as the model.
When asked if he is breaking the law by treating people on the Sabbath, guess WWJD?Jesus who? The one who's dad impregnated a 13 year old girl while she was already betrothed to another man? I wonder if he knew that?
A heck of a belief!The ACLU did not determine the outcome. It is the judge who said:
"The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry United States District Court Northern District of California irreconcilably conflicts with the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and the expressed intent of Congress. Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden. Defendants' claims that the rule can somehow be harmonized with the INA are not persuasive".
The Trump administration can't just break the law, even if there is a need to reform the immigration system, because that undermines the rule of law.
If the current system needs reform, then the administration needs to work with Congress to ensure that reform happens. That means compromises on both sides. It's lack of compromise that is the problem, not the system.
Again, just as an experiment, what would you be willing to give in exchange for concessions from the left, and concessions would you requested in return?
It's easy to just play my-team-vs-your-team (as this thread shows). That may make people feel better, but it won't reform the immigration system.Wonder how he reconciled Obama's decision to re-write the express intentions of congress when he created the DACA fiasco?
Obama’s executive order on DACA was unConstitutional. He even admit it himself years earlier. What a joke.
I'm certain if you looked you could find reason to level similar criticism at Bush Jnr, Clinton, Bush Snr and Reagan. So what? If the Trump administration has violated the law since he came into office (and it has) then he, as the president, holds the responsible for it, and deserves criticism. The fact you can level the same criticism at someone else, doesn't make Trump exempt from it, or absolve him of his responsibility as the person who currently controls the government.
When it comes to the borders, there is no concession I would give. We have laws which were ignored and got us to this point. What good is concessions...?
If anything, we need to tighten up the laws. Any Congressmen who pushes the idea for open borders should be sanctioned or removed from office. They have forsaken their duty to uphold the Constitution.At least you're honest, I'll give you that.
The problem with the approach of no compromise is that it's doomed to fail unless you literally break the system of government outlined in the Constitution.
As you know, the system was devised in a way that requires compromise to carry anything significant forward at a national level. Even more so if it means veering more to the left or the right.
We both know that even when a single party controls Congress and the White House, it can still only manage to steer the country so far in a certain direction. Then all the checks and balances kick in, and that party struggles to go any further. Trump's first two years are a a case in point.
The reality we have to face Jack, is that all the constituents of one party, cannot drag all the constituents of the other too far in a direction that they don't want to go in. The system simply won't allow it. That is the beauty (and the genius) of the system.
The choice is: 1. compromise, 2. stalemate.
The only way to get round that is to break the system. And the only way to do that is to attack the Constitution which serves as the blueprint. Are you really willing to do that Jack?No, here is a scenario I hope you can image. What do you think would happen if
1. Trump does what Mexico did, next time a caravan works its way up here to our borders, and he transport the thousands of asylum seekers across our country and to the Canadian border?
2. Would Canada welcome them with open arms? And provide them the compassionate care that your side say they are not getting?
Do they have the resources, and judges, and holding facilities to process thousands of people?
3. Now do you see the problem?
What is your solution?
How do you compromise with people who are insane and illogical and afflicted with TDS?You're wearing the TDS insult out, Jack. We all know anyone from the left who disagrees with your silly notions about politics has TDS. And just who were you referring to as "insane and illogical.?" Let me make a wild guess. Again, anyone who disagrees with you from the left
You're missing the point Jack.
The only way real immigration reform can happen is if you reach some kind of agreement with those you call "insane people affiliated with TDS".
Constituents of the main parties cannot drag each other kicking and screaming too far in a direction the other doesn't want to go. Checks and balances prevent it. That's the genius of the Constitution and the bane of would-be tyrants.
Everyone agrees immigration needs to be reformed, but unless you reach a compromise on how it's reformed, the result is stalemate.
If the system forces compromise or stalemate, and there is "no concession [you] would give", then either you have accepted stalemate as the only viable option, or you are willing to try to break the system to force your changes through.
You seem to be saying "no" to all three. So is there a fourth option I'm not aware of?
Don To clear up this problem we are having stating immigration laws. please give a resource on the law you speak of. Hopefully, you can provide the actual law. I have quoted actual laws and made every attempt to give reference to those laws as well as procedures for those applying for asylum. You just don't provide any form of reference in regards to actual laws? Please back up what I see at this point as just your opinion. If you can post any actual law whereas the Trump AD. broke please post a link to the law.
Do you believe when a person is detained in prison or an adult facility (per our standing law) their children should accompany them? The law I provide has been in effect for many years. Yes, Trump did decide to enforce it, and it did not work.
Please provide the actual law to prove your statement - It would certainly clarify our conversation. "The policy of separating families seeking asylum, to punish them and deter others, is illegal because the law says you can't impose penalties like that on people who are seeking asylum."I really would appreciate a resource in the form of a statute by law. I will not accept a media description of the law. If you are correct and the Trump AD broke a law that was already on the books in regards to initiating his immigration policies, I will owe you an apology. Otherwise, if you can't back up your statement that the Trump AD broke immigration laws as you have claimed, you owe me one. Fair is it not?
I am very interested in how you came to your belief that the Trump Ad broke laws when enforcing their immigration policies.
Plus, I note you have ignored my claim that the Dem's in Congress could and should release funds for this growing humanitarian crisis. The crisis they claimed was none existent. You seem to insult one part of the government for what you claim are law violations. Yt, you ignore the current problem as do the Dem's in Congress. Yes, people are suffering due to extreme overcrowding. Yet you seem oblivious to the situation.
At best do two wrongs make a right? If you can't prove your statement, please move on to this problem.
I will await your resource on the statute that proves the Trump AD. broke any immigration laws in their dealings with the immigration crisis.
"§1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/1994/ti … i/sec1325/
Yes, a person once on American soil can claim they want asylum. I never said it was against the law for someone that is on US soil to ask for asylum... Not sure why you choose to start your message with a negative remark? ("For about the thousandth time," )
Read my comment, I made no mention that is was illegal for a person that crossed the border to ask for asylum.
Not sure where you are coming from? I believe the only other comment I mentioned people seeking asylum was simply my opinion as I stipulated in the comment. I have a right to my opinion. I was discussing ways to decrease facility overcrowding. You have the right to disagree.
My comment
" I think anyone that crosses out border illegal should be arrested and deported. Those that seek asylum legally should be forewarned they will be held in facilities until their cases were heard. We should also have a limit on asylum seekers. "That is not the comment I replied to. You are confused.
You said: "Ultimately the blame for ending up in one of our holding facilities is the fault of the person that made the decision to travel across in some cases several countries, and in some cases involve their children or a rented child, and illegally enter America.""I think anyone that crosses out border illegal should be arrested and deported. Those that seek asylum legally should be forewarned they will be held in facilities until their cases were heard. We should also have a limit on asylum seekers."
It is illegal under federal law to just deport "anyone that crosses the border illegal".
Federal law states that someone may apply for asylum regardless of the method by which they arrive in the country(1). And international law, which the US is a signatory of, makes it illegal to "impose penalties" on those seeking refuge "on account of their illegal entry or presence"(2).
So when former AG Jeff Sessions, with Trump's support, said. . .
"I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. "(3)
. . . he was effectively announcing the US government's intention to violate federal and international law.
Also, Jeff Sessions and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, both with Trump's support, confirmed the administration is separating families as part of punitive measures to deter others from entering the country(4)(5). Again, under current federal and international law, that is illegal.
So when will you start calling on the government to start complying with federal and international law?
(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
(2) https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10
(3) https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1008 … 29?lang=en
(4) https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … nt-sot.cnn
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/kelly-p … 017-2018-6You are jumping into a conversation I was having with Wilderness. Started way back on page 33. We were discussing how to prevent overcrowding of facilities. Pretty panther also commented you are viewing a response to her post. Which, was also taken out of context.
I hate to tell you many that cross the border do not ask for asylum... I appreciate all your research, and it is factual. It is also factual many that cross our borders and our caught never ask for asylum. The law I posted covered those that don't request asylum.
Here is what I said in regards to seeking asylum - "Yes, a person once on American soil can claim they want asylum. I never said it was against the law for someone that is on US soil to ask for asylum..."
I have a right to my opinion, and that's what I was giving. If you read the comment you will understand that;
Quote from my comment -"I think anyone that crosses out border illegal should be arrested and deported. Those that seek asylum legally should be forewarned they will be held in facilities until their cases were heard. We should also have a limit on asylum seekers."
Note the words "I think". This indicates an opinion...Plus I stated it was only an opinion. I also stated everyone has a right to an opinion... You have the right to disagree and even detest my opinion... That's your right.
I also stated the opinion "Those that seek asylum legally should be forewarned they will be held in facilities until their cases were heard. We should also have a limit on asylum seekers. " Actually persons seeking asylum are held for a certain amount of time to be processed and released to await a decision if they will be granted asylum. Hence, the problem we are having with overcrowding in facilities. That's is what was being discussed.
My comment to Pretty Panther -"Yes, a person once on American soil can claim they want asylum. I never said it was against the law for someone that is on US soil to ask for asylum... Not sure why you choose to start your message with a negative remark? ("For about the thousandth time," )
Read my comment, I made no mention that is was illegal for a person that crossed the border to ask for asylum.
You have gone to great length to point out you disagree with the president's idea's and suggested policies in regards to immigration. That is your opinion, I will respect you have a strong opinion on the subject, and it's my choice not to debate the subject. It would seem very futile...Yes, punishing people who are seeking asylum is illegal, so thanks for clarifying you were referring only to people who are not seeking asylum.
The issue, is that the Trump administration is prosecuting everyone who crosses the border illegally, regardless of whether they are seeking asylum or not. As we have established, that is illegal.
Likewise, the Trump administration has said it is separating families as part of punitive measures to deter others from entering the country. Again, under current federal and international law, that is illegal.
I welcome you looking up the relevant laws at the links I already provided to decide for yourself if that's the case. But if you agree punishing people who are seeking asylum is illegal, why aren't you calling for the Trump administration to start complying with the law?"But if you agree punishing people who are seeking asylum is illegal," I said they are processed following our laws. Our law allows us to keep them in facilities until they are heard, and processed. Please read the link below. Is it fair? that can be in the eye of the beholder. I truly believe asylum seekers need to go through processing, and e held until their claims are heard and decided on. Yes, the prosses has broken down due to the increase in asylum claims. I also believe we need a quick "bandaid to provide better accommodations and speeder hearings. I do not condone just letting people flow into the country. I feel this would lead to even larger problems. This is just my opinion.
I Have added a very good link in regards to immigration law, and the procedures our government uses to process claims of asylum, and what happens to those that have no real claim to asylum. In regards to those that are not asking for asylum, they have broken the law by entering illegally. You show me your resources that have you believing they have not broken the law...
Resourse
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/
Sharlee01....I know....My hope is that they might actually have the courage to read my posts and somehow glean the truth about the Cartels and the fact that illegal immigration is indeed ILLEGAL. But they don't. They would rather get high and pretend that everything would be just fine were it not for President Trump. I can understand when someone is young and doesn't know any better, but some of these old guys? That's kind of pathetic. Seriously.
Pathetic? Am I wrong in feeling that was directed at me? If not, then I am going to need a new smoking jacket. My old one doesn't have any more room for labels. I could barely get my arms around the latest ones about being insidiously hostile to light the bong without spilling something.
(oh hell, I'm on a roll now . . . a legend in my own mind)
I thought that was an insult, Gus?
Let me guess, it's Friday night, the opportunity for a cocktail--or perhaps 5--is too much to resist for an old dude. (I'm simply going by my Friday night routine, so you could be having warm milk instead)Warm Milk . . . what a jokester you are.
Nope, it's a martini night - but only two!
And I am having too much fun to be insulted. It's all good. Hell, I might even top off that second martini with a toke or two. Just for medicinal purposes, you understand. Regularity is important at my age. (oh hell there I go again . . . LMAO)
GAHA! I have hereditary glaucoma, Gus. Way ahead of you! And I wouldn't dare insult you......purposely.
"Border Patrol and Ice and doing the best they can with the limited resources that the Democrats have allowed the president to have, even though he has asked for more money."
And why won't the Democrats provide him with more money to help out with detention? Because many of the Democratic politicians don't want those requesting asylum to be detained. Yet, detention makes sense because many of those seeking asylum don't come back for their hearings, meaning that they simply stay in country. Now THAT is illegal.Agree 100%. Your facts are indisputable.
People like Pretty will never get it...
They think they are the “good” people by being supportive of these poor immigrants...in fact they are the enablers of them.
The true compassion is for us to solve this problem once and for all by building that wall Trump wanted so they will not even attempt to cross illegally.I dispute them, Jack. You just cannot speak for everyone. I buy you books and you eat the covers off of them....
Really Jack....For the thousandth-and-one time, asylum seekers are not breaking the law. A wall will do nothing to solve that problem.
Y'all seem to conveniently forget that indisputable fact.Here is a fact for you. Asylum seekers enter legally. There is a process to handle them. Happens thousands of times a day for people around the world. Others who want to forgo the process and just get into the country are here illegally. Can you see there is a difference?
Yes, Mike, I know the difference. The families in the internment facilities are asylum seekers. That was my point. A wall will do nothing for that problem. That was my point.
I believe a wall will cut down on the number of people who are misusing the immigration laws in place for asylum seekers. A true asylum seeker will show up for their court hearing. They will be able to produce documentation showing their life is in danger if they return to their home country. This can include newspaper clippings of previous incidents against a person's family. Records of bogus arrests, statements from others and more. A TRUE asylum seeker knows this and works to provide the necessary documentation. There are many aid agencies who help people in this situation with their court appearance. I know this from helping relatives who escaped Ukraine when it was dominated by the then Soviet Union. They are all now legal U.S. Citizens.
A large percentage of these people don't show up for their initial hearing. There is no way to track where they are living. Again, these are just people using the Asylum laws to gain access illegally into the United States.
Here is an article about it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dhs … -hearings/Again, the reason I entered that s thread is to point out that AOC is correct. These are concentration camps.I'm really not interested in arguing about the stupid wall again. It is never going to be built.
It's no use arguing with Mike anyway, Pretty. If you ask him a question he doesn't want to answer, he'll just question your intellect and wish you a nice day.
It is that attitude that creates the never ending problem...year after year, decade after decade and administration after administration.
Don’t build the wall, then I assume you are happy with the status quo.
Why even bother discussing this?
Trump is stupid..., you and your crowd knows best but offer no solutions.
At least Trump is trying and Congress and the insiders and the swamp is stopping him."Don’t build the wall, then I assume you are happy with the status quo."
This is faulty reasoning. I am as frustrated with Congress' failure to address the problem as you are. I just think building a wall will have no effect on legal asylum seekers. It's a waste of money. As for no solutions,I seem to recall a bipartisan deal that included money for a border wall plus other remedies that was kiboshed by your beloved president.
The problem is these people for the most part are not asylum seekers. A true asylum seeker would stop at the nearest border in this case Mexico. They would also apply through established channels. Instead, they are encouraged and in some cases paid and supported by groups like George Soros to invade our country and cause disruption and they are taught to say the right things to grant a hearing which then they will be released to the general population. This was what happened under Obama with his catch and release program.
What part of this ruse don’t you understand?
At what point will you say stop? 100,000, 200,000 or 500,000?
How many people do you thing our ICE agents can deal with given the current resources?
This is an orchestrated invasion.Got a link showing most aren't asylum seekers Jack, or are you simply making it up?
I don’t need to. Ask your self a simple question. Why now so many asylum seekers? What major changes occur this past year? Did some major disaster happen? Did some new tyrant government abused it’s citizens?
The answer is nothing changed. So why so many refugees? Seeking asylum?
The answer is obvious. These people are not dumb, like some bleeding heart American liberals. They figured out how to beat our system. Our laws protect people seeking asylum but it was never intended for these caravans of mobs invading our southern borders. Our laws are not sufficient to handle such.Randy, here is a quote from our immigration laws regarding asylum seekers -
“Those seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.“I already know about the immigration laws, Jack. I asked for a link saying what you claimed about the percentage of asylum seekers, not the immigration laws.
And apparently you haven't heard about the problems in the countries the asylum seekers are from. Doesn't Fox News report on that?
Yes you do need to, Jack. You don't expect me to take your word for it, do you?
You don’t have to take my word for it. You just need to use your brain and not follow the progressive line of propaganda.
Why didn't you say it was only your opinion to begin with when I asked for a link?
And you don't follow the conservative line of propaganda? You're the poster boy for conservative propaganda...It is typical of progressives to infer your own tactics on your adversaries...
For your information, I don‘t engage in propaganda.
You brought it up, you are the poster boy not me.I brought up your false claim and asked you to back it up, Jack. don't write a check your a$$ can't cash.
Stop with your idiocy. You have done it again. You are banned. No more discussion with someone totally unreasonable. Have a nice day. Maybe you need me to send a link on the weather in NY to proof that it is a nice day....
- Since when did you become a moderator, Jack? Why are you mad because I asked you for a link to your claim? You made it didn't you?
You do this every time someone proves you wrong. Go ahead, flounce on out of here if you don't want to be challenged on your comments.
He "doesn't need to" because he is wrong.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/70042806 … -year-high
None of that, especially the false assertions, changes the fact that the conditions in these facilities are a violation of the law and do meet the definition of "concentration camp" which was my original point.
What are you talking about?
These are detention centers.
You want to call it concentration camp, that is your perogative but don’t insult our intelligence with your legal garble. Liberals like to confuse and confound with language and emotions.
The fact is the fact. We are a righteous nation and we are dealing with a crisis despite the facts that over half our nation does not recognize or admit to that crisis. But at some point, it cannot be ignored and we have long past that point. AOC is part of the problem and not the solution.People like you are part of the problem and not the solution, Jack. You make false comments, and when caught, you go on to tell more. You are indeed like Trump...
I can't help it if my short, direct posts are confusing to you. I can't make them much shorter or much more direct and still make my point.
So, at the end of the day, what is your opinion of AOC? Do you think she is doing a good job in Congress after 6 months?
Correct. The fact that they don't seek asylum in Mexico, Belize or Costa Rice (the last two are very stable) says something about the motives.
You're a good man, Jack. But best not to waste your time. They really don't care.
We don't care he is posting stuff from a Russian website to smear a member of the U.S. Congress?
A good man who is the poster boy for how Russia influences American voters.
I have news for you, all countries act in their best interest and at times try to influence other countries elections...including our country under President Obama, who try to influence Israel’s election.
So, you are okay with Russian propaganda and will happily consume and share it, as you do here on HP. Nice.
Yes, Trump should be impeached. I don't agree with Pelos's tactics,even though I understand the practicality of not pushing impeachment in the House knowing it will be lost in the Trump-a$$-kissing-Republican-controlled Senate.
I'm at the point of wanting the impeachment process to begin, no matter the consequences to the Dems chances. We cannot let any POTUS think he/she is above the law no matter the party they represent.
Just wait until the recession to start next year, as many experts are predicting.
Republicans will suddenly like impeachment a lot more.Agreed.
Laws he broke:
Campaign Finance with the McDougal payoff and not reporting it
Obstruction of Justice to protect Russia from Mueller
Illegal use of charitable funds for personal gain
You're correct, SD. We really don't care about made up propaganda. Apparently you do...
You do know the people at those facilities are free to go back across the boarder and start their journey back to their home at any time they desire. They are there because they want to get into this country. They are still free to leave and head back down south. Guess what? That is NOT how a concentration camp works. Do you know much about history?
Don't make me have to ask you another question, Mike!
In looking around for some information on this issue I found that the detainment camps Pres. Trump is being criticized for are the same ones Pres. Obama used. (there may be some new camps?)
So, if AOC is correct in her assessment that President Trump's camps are concentration camps, and that . . .
“A presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist, and it’s very difficult to say that.”
Does her condemnation apply to Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama also?
If the immediate equating of "concentration camps" with Nazi Germany were removed, then it would be easy to see these "detainment centers" as concentration camps;
Central American children at a Border Patrol processing center in 2014. AP PHOTO/ROSS D. FRANKLIN
Take a breath folks. I am not denying the horrible conditions and overcrowding of these camps . . .
But, where is the legitimacy for decrying this solely as a "Trump" issue?
So contrary to her, (AOC) claims that she wasn't just "throwing bombs," I think that by laying this on Pres. Trump that is exactly what she is doing.
GAMy understanding is that, yes, the Obama administration set up these facilities to deal with an increase in children and families seeking asylum. I believe the courts ordered them to stop and they did.
A concentration camp is a concentration camp no matter who runs it.
"But, where is the legitimacy for decrying this solely as a "Trump" issue? " he's the president, isn't he?Yes, Ms. He is the president.
As it is with so many other "blame the other guy" issues. A look at available options always helps.
It appears that Pres. Trump had two primary options; continue Pres. Obama's Catch and Release policy, or pursue efforts to stop the flow and fill the camps. As an aside, I think it was the use of Fort Sill that the courts ordered Pres Obama to cease doing.
Even if one had the best of intentions to deal with 1000 people, (the detainment camps), when that 1000 becomes 10,000 those good intentions don't carry much weight.
I am not defending the detainment/concentration centers/camps, I am criticizing AOC's portrayal that is is a Trump-instigated problem.
With her quote about it being a fascist president's action, I wonder how she would respond when confronted with the fact that the camps were the children of Bush and Obama that Pres. Trump inherited.
GAJack's opening comment focused on the "concentration camp" terminology and didn't mention that she called Trump a "fascist president" so my initial comment was only addressing the concentration camp comment.
You seem to be saying that Bush and Obama used these facilities in the exact same manner as the Trump administration is doing? Is that true?Relative to Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama's use of those facilities, and without the exacerbation caused by Pre. Trump's policies, I would say yes it is true.
I don't think it was just Pres. Obama's humanitarianism that prompted his Catch and Release policy. I think it was the magnitude of the numbers crossing the border.
Had his policy been 100% detainment, such as Pre. Trump's, I believe the overcrowding conditions prompting these "concentration camp" charges could have been laid at his feet first.
I don't think the actual "manner," (efforts of humane treatment), of detainment has changed, but the ability of the facilities to maintain that effort has.
I didn't disagree with your point about whether it was legitimate to call them concentration camps. My point was to the agenda, (as I see it), behind AOC's claim.
GAI think we have a problem with language in our country. We are living in a world where words do not seem to have the same meaning for all. In this new environment, there are apparently code words...
Examples are -
Trump = Hitler
MAGA.= White Supremicist
Border Wall = xenophobia
Detention camp = Concentration camp
Conservative = Hate...
Fox New = Bias Fake News
...An agenda. As in promotion of socialism, denigrating the president and promoting open borders.
There are many methods of doing these things, and crying crocodile tears while grossly exaggerating the faults with an intent to convince people conditions are far worse than they are (this is called a "lie") is but one method. Another is to cry those same tears while encouraging additional illegal crossings...and firmly tying the purse strings closed on the funding necessary to support those crossings is another.
It's all about the political gamesmanship, not the people involved. No one cares about them - they are but pawns in the power struggles on the Hill. If AOC can convince another 10,000 to enter illegally, and prevent top notch treatment while doing so she is scoring points in the "game". And that those 10,000 pawns in her game are hurt or even destroyed is not important - that's what pawns are for.Don't hold back now, how do you really feel about it? ;-)
GA- I think I pretty much said it - the goal of people such as AOC is not to enforce the laws, is not to provide for the good of the country. It is to turn the greatest nation on earth into a third world country by attempting to support half the world's population. And, always, to grow their political power.
After following this thread I am scratching my head? The question asked was what AOC will learn from her controversial statement. From the response comments, It seems many are concerned with the facilities conditions as well as how long these facilities have been around. It would seem we need such facilities to handle investigating of possible criminal histories of persons hoping to enter the country, conduct health examinations, and to ascertain asylum claims. Yes, it is apparent these facilities have become overcrowded and burdened handling so many people. Does this call for a Congressperson to call it a concentration camp? What will she learn? She may just learn she can cause havoc and have citizens going in every direction but in the right direction.
You mention in your comment we have two options. It well appears you are correct.
Fixing the problem would be one option. The other more or less having open borders we would have no need for facilities. If not, it's up to us to build more facility to house immigrants and handle their processing under current laws? We would also need more judges and staff to complete the task of welcoming all these hundreds of thousands of people that want to come to America. We will also need to open up our communities to handle all these new citizens.
Is it not up to Congress to make and or change our immigration laws? They certainly could initiate a bill to open our borders. They stipulate one need not ask for asylum, just walk across our border.
Otherwise, as the laws now dictate we need facilities to house immigrants while they are processed. If we hope to regulate who comes into America, it's up to Congress to reform our immigration laws to handle the problems that are occurring at the border.
Cortez is a Congresswoman, is it not up to her to seek solutions to problems, not add to them with controversial statements? It' It's pretty easy to put together a homemade flick and put it out over the internet. It appears much easier than doing her job. So, if she considered the responses from citizens posting on the thread.
Could she also learn from some comment that she has caused many to go off in many directions, and not really confront the true problem? Better yet who is responsible for fixing the problem..."If not, it's up to us to build more facility to house immigrants and handle their processing under current laws? We would also need more judges and staff to complete the task of welcoming all these hundreds of thousands of people that want to come to America. We will also need to open up our communities to handle all these new citizens. "
Why? Why is it up to the American people to support the lawbreakers that do not acknowledge our laws? Why is it up to Americans to welcome millions of people that do not respect our laws? Why is it up to us to open our communities to those same lawbreakers?
On the whole our immigrations laws are satisfactory, there there are some areas that could use change. Congress is not responsible to make new laws...that no one will enforce - they are responsible for enforcing the laws we already have, the laws they have ignored for decades in favor of creating a second class citizenry that will pad their pockets and buy votes.Wilderness --- "Why? Why is it up to the American people to support the lawbreakers that do not acknowledge our laws? Why is it up to Americans to welcome millions of people that do not respect our laws? Why is it up to us to open our communities to those same lawbreakers?"
I completely see your point and feel the same frustration. I agree with every word you said. However, the reality is we do only have a few choices to handle this growing problem. I pointed them out. We have current laws, that's the bottom line. If we don't make some changes, the situation will get worse. This is totally on the Democrats, and they need to either spend lots of cash to handle the problem or change our laws.
I didn't offer my opinion on our current immigration laws. My opinion is they need to be scrapped and new ones need to be made that will deter anyone from trying to enter illegally. I like presidents Trump's plan 100%. However, the Democratic Congress is not willing to consider it and has fought him at every turn. Some will not even admit there is a problem at the border. The president has requested funds to build more shelters, and add more judges, and staff to help with the immediate crisis. It is stalled in Congress.
"On the whole our immigration laws are satisfactory, there-there are some areas that could use change. Congress is not responsible to make new laws...that no one will enforce - they are responsible for enforcing the laws we already have, the laws they have ignored for decades in favor of creating a second class citizenry that will pad their pockets and buy votes."
This is where I disagree, and this is only my opinion so please don't shoot the messenger. I think we need to change the current immigration laws to mimic perhaps Australia or even Mexico. We need limits to how many immigrants we accept yearly, and we need to accept people by merit, and employment needs. I think anyone that crosses out border illegal should be arrested and deported. Those that seek asylum legally should be forewarned they will be held in facilities until their cases were heard. We should also have a limit on asylum seekers. We as a nation have a right to close our doors. American citizens should not have to be burdened with the high cost of caring for any lawbreakers.
My comment was only to point out our current situation. This situation is not new but has become worse. Why, and this again is an opinion. I feel they might see it as open season, many see we don't enforce our laws, and a chance to get in before laws are changed.
At any rate, I feel we need more progressive laws, and we need to be able to enforce our laws.Perhaps when you guys make Trump King he'll straighten things out, Shar.
Why wait for that Randy. By all appearances, the Democrats can join the Republicans and fix or change, or at least fund our current immigration laws.
Why not look for some Democratic proposals to pre-empt King Trump?
GAVery good point. Looking forward to the Dem's to vote on impeachment hearings. As I looked forward to seeing the Mueller report. They claim they have the goods.
The dems and the cons sent Trump a bill which he said he'd sign, Shar. He lied when he got the bill. There's that....
Trump did not sign the bill, it was nothing but fluff and puff... The president asked the Congress for emergency funds to help with the border crisis. You know the crisis that has been getting worse for months. He asked for cash to help improve conditions at the facilities where asylum seekers are being held, and funds needed to expedite immigrants claims for asylum. Oh, and I would think the Dem's would want to fix the facilities they condemn so vehemently 24/7. "no showers, lack of water and food, overcrowded, sleeping on the ground.."
May 1, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ … on-1296437
May 1,2019
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-admi … r-funding/
June 4, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … 358f08d3d2
6/7/2019 No funds yet? Guess their busy, complaining about the
sad condition at the border "concentration camps" AOC
https://thehill.com/latino/447383-trump … n-congressTrump said, "send me a bill and I'll sign it." Another lie in the very long list of untruths.
He certainly did make that statement. Not sure which bill you speak of there have been many in regards to immigration. I believe if I remember correctly in the bill you are referring to Trump did not feel it would be a bill he could sign due to the Dem's not giving him enough to build the wall, and he did not feel it was broad enough in other problems such as chain-migration, and some things he had hoped to include in regards to asylum laws, as well as ending chain migration, as well as some ice issues. At any rate, two wrongs don't make a right. The Dem's daily point out that the Trump ad. is being inhumane to immigrants in custody. Just weeks ago many were staying there was no crisis at our borders? Actually, if Trump signed that bill we would still be having the problem we are having. The majority of those flowing across the borders in this past year have made claims of needing asylum... The DEm's have it in their hands to allocate funds to help in a humanitarian crisis. The very crisis they are using as a political tool. Just should wake many up to what non-caring Dem's we have in our Congress, should it not?
As I mentioned both sides have made statements that show they can flip flop at a moments notice. At this point, I think it only kind to concentrate on the true problems we are having currently at the border and the facilities? Yes, I pointed out Trump asked for emergency funds to help with the current humanitarian crisis. I did this due to the facilities were the subject of this thread.
I found an online resource that one can read bills that Congress has presented in regards to immigration. I will be honest, all this went on in 2018, I would have to read the bill again, to continue a discussion on it. I think it is water under the bridge.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ … ation/6206
Randy, He certainly is trying to straighten out our immigration problem and has been seen he took office. I must say in my opinion I feel he has done a lot in two years.
Hopefully, the Dem's in Congress will work with him to solve our immigration problems. This is certainly a problem that has bee around for many years. No need to point fingers, Our Congress needs to do their job. The Republican's certainly could have made an attempt to fix it when they had the majority. Just not sure why the Dem's are not jumping on this one? Funny they don't with the election right around the corner?. One would think they could benefit from doing just about anything. Guess they are using all their energy on trying to come up with something to offer us in the 2020 election. Oh, I forgot they are offering to impeach Trump.
.
Related Discussions
- 12
Scandalous video of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discovered
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
Everyone knew this communist had low morals and now a new video has been unearthed showing just how immoral she is. Here's the link:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … -politics/She was in college at the time. Is this how a member of Congress should act? Shouldn't we expect more from...
- 29
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Ocasio-Cortez indicated that she thinks that the wealthy should be taxed 70% & that way America will have a more humane living system. She believes that if the rich are taxed 70%, there would be no homelessness, there would be money for services such as healthcare, education, & housing...
- 36
What do you think about President Obama so far?
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
What do you think about President Obama so far?People blame the President when the US Congress that is controlled by the Republicans is really screwing over America. How anyone could support the so called Tea Party is beyond me. They really don't care about the average American. They are only...
- 40
The DARK SIDE of the Democratic Party-Do THEY CARE About America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 months ago
It is not as much as an ideological war but a socioeconomic/educational war as well. The Democratic Party now represents the upper middle to upper class, highly educated populace. The Democratic Party has a covert disdain for the solidly middle class although the party claim that...
- 22
FACE APP ! ! ! :(
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Someone I know texted a picture of my distorted face. I don't know why using FaceApp has become such a tantalizing past time: it went viral recently. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsi … fff0d762f1 I consider this endeavor harmful to the psyche. Our facial features are ...
- 44
The Path To Prosperity - Paul Ryan's Budget
by lady_love158 14 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 57504.htmlThis is bold! This is leadership! Using the recommendations from Obama's own debt commission Ryan constructed this budget. Look for the democrats to demagogue, distract, and disparage this while not bringing forth a reasonable plan of their...