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,
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...
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?
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?
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. ;-)
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?
No 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.
Thanks 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.
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.
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..."
Even 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?
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.
She's the Democrat version of Sarah Palin, except dumber. The only lesson she should be learning is how to quit.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
Don’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?
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.
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.
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.html
And 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-losses
You're quoting data from ten to twenty-five years ago to make your case? Try coming back into this decade....
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.
Ditto, Don! Now you're getting smart...
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!
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, 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. As a result, the International Astronomical Union named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez. 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.
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?
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.
I 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]
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.
So a woman who says stupid things is an idiot but a man who says stupid things is a genius?
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.
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!
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-0co2c
Mike, 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?"
No 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.
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?
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.
can focus now on the security of building a wall on the borders from that link.
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?
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 disdain
Nancy 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!
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.
Wasn't that exactly how the war in Iraq worked? Facts were wrong, but it was morally correct?
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?
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.html
I'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.
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.
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.
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.
It'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.
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.
You 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." ;-)
I 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.
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?
Perhaps 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...
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?
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?
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."
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.
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...………...
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....
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.
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...
Grabien Mobile App
Get Grabien on the go!
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’
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?
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.
That's what jackclee said, we are human, and privilege is the truth of the human race.
Cool! Us old white men are still in charge, eh GA?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I 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.
Eh, 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.php
I 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?
Ga, 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...….
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.
Oh, 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. ;-)
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.