Can we all agree Ocasio-Cortez is fencepost dumb or nuts?

Seriously.

I get socialism. I do. It's deeply flawed and a violation of basic individual rights in every way, but I get it, and I get why some are proponents of it.

But her brand of "socialism" isn't even sane. it's that young, naive, dont' bother me with facts or math type of socialism.

Her "Green New Deal" today included gems like "support" for those "unwilling" to work. Taking socialist flaws such as the removal of incentives for work to eleven, they embrace the idea with vigor and pride. Just dont' like work? no problem, here's your check and house and food.

But wait. If you vote now, you'll also get: “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;”

You know, b/c we said so, so surely it'll just work right? I mean the fact that mathematically we can't generate enough energy for our needs with solar and wind isn't the issue at all. We're just going to pass a law that it WILL meet our needs, and to be safe we'll include a paragraph that says the transition has to be fair and just for everyone so no one is hurt. See, magic!!!

Then there's this, which should prove to everyone these people are bat crap crazy, and not just social justice socialists: An accompanying FAQ, released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office and obtained by NPR, goes even further, calling to "upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency."

Read that a few times. Going to go to every building in America and bring it up to some kind of net-zero greenhouse level of efficiency, either by retrofitting or tearing it down and replacing it.

Every. Building. In. America. Google says there are about 5.6 million commercial buildings. IN 2000 there were 115 million residences, per US Census 70 million were single family, 6.4 million were semi-attached (duplexes), rest were attached like apartment buildings, etc. Households up over 126 million now.

So say 105 or 110 million or so actual buildings in America. give or take. It'll take a lot more than a grand or two to fix on average, lol. My house was built in 1889. To get to modern "efficiency" would take at least $50-60K, probably more like $100K if you really did it right. Plaster walls with brick frame, no insulation. Can't use formaldehyde, so do you take down all the plaster on every exterior wall, insulate and put it back up? Windows all need replacing, roof needs insulation and soffit venting, insulate crawl, radon abatement b/c you just sealed up the house so much.

Can't knock it down, it's in a historic zone, or do they override state and local building codes and laws across the board?

You know how many trillions it would cost to do such a thing? The unreal legal hurdles and issues?

And how about the simple violation of basic property rights for tens of millions of Americans? What if they decide my home can't be saved and they just take it,knock it down and give me a new, better home? Not my choice, but why does that matter? It's about saving the planet right? So I should shut up and be grateful.


Seriously, done with silly rant, but can we agree she's a fencepost with a pretty face? And whole generations of kids who have gone to college on mommy and daddy's money and gotten zero actual education all think it's a dandy idea.

Oh, and so do most of the early Democratic candidates for President. People thought the GOP lost its mind voting for Trump, but their solution is to one up that move to the extreme with one that makes Trump look like Lieberman.

She’s a product of modern university thought....let that sink in....
And I find it funny all the Trump hate from the left. If anything, his donations over the years indicate he was a democrat albeit a more conservative one. There are portions of the right that hate him for that very reason.

I forgot to mention she wants to "make air travel obsolete", and today alone said it was both massive government intervention and wasn't massive government intervention, in a span of 12 hours.

Oh, and eliminate cows eventually. No joke. High speed rail only vegetarians. Where do I sign up?

She's the kid in your classes who talked like she "got it", and was lucky to pass. I wouldn't put her in charge of a shoe shine concession in the airport she wants to close.

Even Pelosi jabbed at it today with this comment:

“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico on Wednesday. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

Yeah Pelosi, kinda like Obamacare.... (short memories on politicians)

according to Nancy, we have to pass it to know whats in it.


Ocasio is simply a sign of the times. A politician who promises whatever to get elected without consideration for the mechanics. Look at places with Universal Health Care. Those countries all have minimun tax rates of around 15%. Everybody pays taxes, even those make $10,000 a year. That is how it is paid for, not by taxing the rich who already are paying their fair share. The 50% of the nation who does not pay federal income tax, that is where other countries find the revenue for UHC. This GND is the same. Logistically it is not doable. It put thousands out of work and achieves nothing. Other countries step up fossil fuel usage as oil become cheap due to lower demand (making the incredible assumption this hairbrained plan come to fruition). And you think China, India, etc are going to use environmentally friendly methods? Good luck with that. They will produce cheaper good with cheaper energy while our industrial costs skyrocket and put "made in America" out of business

As for her...why is any attention being garnered to a 30 something freshman senator? Well, she is attractive so much of the nation fantasizes about that. Much of the nation is fixated on her ignorance because most of what comes out of her mouth is just stupid and third, folks love "AOC" and other cute names (Beto and Kahmilla fall in here too).

“'Green New Deal' document disappears from Ocasio-Cortez's website after receiving massive social media mockery”

https://www.theblaze.com/news/green-...-media-mockery

The stupid part of her act is just that: an act.

This woman is one of a new breed of Socialists. And they have a plan, which involves saying a lot that sounds like one thing but actually means something else.
In another time most of us here would have called this plan exactly what it really is: COMMUNISM. Period.

And don't be fooled by her (good?) looks. Every rose has its thorns. Only hers are poisonous to anyone who gets pricked by them.
This woman is dangerous. A clear and present danger in a nicer package, but a danger nonetheless.
Obama, Hillary and Bernie must be so proud of themselves and what they have unleashed into our midst.

Somewhere in the bowels of Hell, Nikita Kruschev is laughing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

“'Green New Deal' document disappears from Ocasio-Cortez's website after receiving massive social media mockery”

https://www.theblaze.com/news/green-...-media-mockery

---

Mockery? how about a recall. lol.

Wants to ban cows and airplanes. and that's not an exaggeration, it's in the documents and FAQ, which as you said are being removed b/c it's also a sure sign she's bat crap crazy.

As Doc said, this is so wholly absurd and unworkable I really don't know where to start. Does anyone think we have enough trained construction workers to either rebuild or retrofit every standing building in the country in 10 years even if we had the $20 trillion to do it? Anyone think it's feasible to eliminate air travel or that it should even be a policy goal?

It's nuts. Not just your basic unworkable, can't pay for it socialism, but utterly stupid. Seriously, I'd flunk a 6th grader for turning in work this poorly conceived and thought out. maybe you give a 1st or 2nd grader an A for thinking about it, but by 6th grade you should know better.

No

Who in heck decided she was/is pretty? She is more pleasing to look at than Pelosi, but so are half of the mules in Missouri, and the other half of the mules are just headed in the opposite direction.

The estimates are a cost of $7,000,000,000,000 (7 trillion). I say no way. No way can you refit every building in the USA to eliminate fossil fuel for that AND replace every car AND pay every person who can't work or does not want to work AND provide health care for all AND build a high speed rail system. I'd multiply that by 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

The estimates are a cost of $7,000,000,000,000 (7 trillion). I say no way. No way can you refit every building in the USA to eliminate fossil fuel for that AND replace every car AND pay every person who can't work or does not want to work AND provide health care for all AND build a high speed rail system. I'd multiply that by 10.

---

7 trillion? yeah, sure. That's hysterical.

Quick google fact check:

64 million homes or more use natural gas for heat. Zero greenhouse gas means all those houses (not counting businesses) have to convert over, right? Found a site that says average cost of an electric furnace install is $4,266.

That's $281 billion just to pay for the change in furnaces, say $350 with businesses to be conservative. That's just furnace, not counting electrical work to wire up for it in older homes that may not have the voltage load, or radiator homes, businesses like mine that use tube radiant heaters, that would need extra adjustments and work.

That same study says a high end furnace average is $9K. Cost overruns, etc. you're looking at say half a trillion, and that doesn't even count that the rates will go up b/c you're going to be short about a million HVAC guys to cover that much work, maybe a couple million. Oh, and I don't think we have 66 million furnaces in inventory currently, so how much does all that manufacturing production ramp up cost? It's a one time thing b/c once we're done demand drops back to normal, so those are going to take a big loss on investment.

now that is only to get off natural gas for heat. That doesn't count insulation and windows and such to meet their efficiency requirements.

All the costs rolled up it's trillions just to retrofit houses, and many can't be retrofitted, so then you're looking at new construction.

Now let's talk about that high speed rail system that is going to totally replace air travel...

This is so correct.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wsj...written-by-gop

WSJ writer says this thing reads like the GOP did an Onion parody of the Democratic platform. That is so true. it's so absurd no one would laugh, and these people are serious.

Education in this country is in the toilet.

CBBN, how in hell is enough electric current going to be generated to power up those electric heaters without burning fossil fuels? There are more cloudy days than sunny ones in many parts of the country when the max loads will be needed to heat the buildings. Solar and wind just will not get it done.

She isn’t dumb. And 75% of people under 30 love her. She is a frightening prospect and the media is all over her every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

CBBN, how in hell is enough electric current going to be generated to power up those electric heaters without burning fossil fuels? There are more cloudy days than sunny ones in many parts of the country when the max loads will be needed to heat the buildings. Solar and wind just will not get it done.

---

It's a mathematical impossibility. We simply don't have the technology.

The thing might as well have called for dilithium anti-matter drives in 10 years to solve the energy problem. Seriously. it's that realistic.

To go to some kind of "zero greenhouse" emission based on their standards we'd have to a) slaughter every farm animal, and then b) live like the Walking Dead. That's the only way we're going to get there in 10 years.

Maybe she can ask if Thanos can do The Snap. That might help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

She isn’t dumb. And 75% of people under 30 love her. She is a frightening prospect and the media is all over her every day.

---

Lots of dumb people are well liked. I'd say she is as dumb as a fence post because her ideas make zero sense and are logistically impossible, plus they would have little effect since you still have every other nation in the world being a glutton for fossil fuel. Take us out of the equation and far less responsible users become the major consumers and greenhouse gasses increase. She is clueless about foreign policy, and finance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

She isn’t dumb. And 75% of people under 30 love her. She is a frightening prospect and the media is all over her every day.

---

Oh, she's dumb. Some people are dumb like a fox, but IMO she really believes this stuff. That's why she's so good at selling it. She really lacks the cognitive ability to see more than one variable in the equation. She wants everyone to have everything like some utopia of PC social justice, and thinks just passing a law magically makes it happen.

I saw this in debate. Some team would run a case and think just passing a law would "make it so." We'd point out it lacked solvency, i.e. you can't pass a law mandating all utility plants run on dilithium anti-matter drives in 10 years b/c it can't be done, and they'd respond that they have a law and that will make it happen.

A great example is when you get into incentive based things. We'd point out that people won't do X even if you mandate it, like for example how banning drugs hasn't really eliminated drug use, and they'd reply that there is a law and that's that and it's magically going to work.

She's like that. Now I agree she is smart enough to know she's making her career and gaining power by doing this, but in the end for someone to suggest such idiotic things they are either complete con artists or stupid enough to think it's workable. I think she's maybe 20/80.

Her staff people are probably even dumber, but I do think she actually thinks this is at least in part achievable. I don't know how you suggest eliminating air travel for high speed rail and not have brain damage. Or getting rid of meat production in the US, specifically cattle.

Now I do agree 100% she and this generation of drooling morons that have been spoon fed stupid pills by the nation's colleges and universities are frightening beyond belief.

I keep thinking this is what Rome must have been like in the waning years, with entire generations of people coming up who were so utterly clueless about what kept the system running that they broke it utterly and didn't even know what they were doing.

The end of the Great Experiment is coming no doubt. I imagine I'll be gone before it's finalized, but I kinda hope not. Should make for great entertainment.

She appears to be of little substance and all about building a brand to me. Where have we seen the flood the news with nonsensical imaginations and when you offer something abrasively cutting edge, they'll not be as incensed, modus operandi?
The added bonus is you are assured great news coverage and a rabid base of Q-Anon like support.

I'm not impressed with her at all.

BTW, lots of Americans lack that fundamental ability to go another layer down and look at the reaction to the action and how things really play out. The whole basis of socialism is to not look at that reaction.

Like her suggestion we support those "unwilling" to work. They can't see the obvious point that millions upon millions will then choose not to work, and the machine stops. They can't understand incentive based behavior at all, b/c it's not about the action but the reaction, and they can't go that far.

Prohibition is a great example, and the current drug situation. We tried banning a vice once. We banned it despite many Americans wanting to partake, we spent fortunes trying to enforce it, and in the end it was more pervasive while banned than before the ban.

But did we collectively learn that lesson, check the box and say "OK, in future we have to take the reaction of those who demand a thing into account in our planning"? Nope.

So we went back to banning a thing in great demand. Yes a thing we wish wasn't in demand, but in demand regardless, just like Demon Rum in the 1920s. And it has done the exact same things. We've spent vast treasure on stopping it an all we've done is increase use and fund an entire global criminal network worth trillions designed to provide it through the black market.

People just can't learn the reaction to the action. And interestingly they can't see the action/reaction things that work either. For example, our approach to tobacco, b/c it was too politically powerful to ban outright, worked great. Focusing on treatment and shaming and changing the culture of it has reduced use dramatically without creating any of the adverse side effects such as a black market criminal enterprise.

So they can't see how free markets, not these corporate/government oligarchies but real free markets, solve most of what they want solved.

Sorry, but as I've gotten old I'm less politic about it. If you can't see the action/reaction relationship of human behavior, which is the basis for economic behavior, then you won't see it. If you can see how that works, and honestly since we all do it every day many times you'd think it would be clear, then it's easy to see how wrongheaded these polices will be and are now, and what should be done.

There is one caveat: a lot of "social justice" isn't based on what is best for "me", but rather simple jealousy. If you tell a person you will elevate their standard of living and they will have more and work less, but the price is that your neighbor will get even more than you, many will be incensed and turn that down, even though they are actually hurting themselves. They would rather be poorer and have their neighbors be poor too than be richer and better off but not be as well off relative to others.

it's an interesting failing of the human condition, and that's the source of social justice, socialism and communism. Many would rather be more equal than more prosperous. they don't know that's the decision, but it's the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

She appears to be of little substance and all about building a brand to me. Where have we seen the flood the news with nonsensical imaginations and when you offer something abrasively cutting edge, they'll not be as incensed, modus operandi? The added bonus is you are assured great news coverage.

I'm not impressed with her at all.

---

She's a loon, and I agree completely she's building a brand, and that part she does know she's doing.

She's got senior Senators chasing her coattails. They're dumber than she is IMO.

That part of what she's doing is smart, there I agree with Bigsky. But I do think she actually believes a lot of this stuff, which means she's stupid but smart enough to play others, which makes her even more dangerous.

It'll be interesting to see if she ends up being the GOP's wet dream. If the 2020 candidates all embrace this kind of lunatic extremism, they may put Trump right back in the big chair. Extremism typically loses the middle in elections, and this kind of policy initiative seriously makes Trump's positions moderate if not centrist by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

She's a loon, and I agree completely she's building a brand, and that part she does know she's doing.

She's got senior Senators chasing her coattails. They're dumber than she is IMO.

That part of what she's doing is smart, there I agree with Bigsky. But I do think she actually believes a lot of this stuff, which means she's stupid but smart enough to play others, which makes her even more dangerous.

It'll be interesting to see if she ends up being the GOP's wet dream. If the 2020 candidates all embrace this kind of lunatic extremism, they may put Trump right back in the big chair. Extremism typically loses the middle in elections, and this kind of policy initiative seriously makes Trump's positions moderate if not centrist by comparison.

---

Like I edited to add above, I can see some political advantage to establishing a rabid fringe base of support like the QAnon phenomenon. One that you can eventually distance yourself from but yet reap the benefits of an overtly faithful social media presence.

I have (?) a friend who is now a shape shifter following, lizard fearing QAnon member, and the lengths (non violent) he goes to in support of their cause is freakish.

The problem I see is the media is pushing her as the face of the Democratic Party....which she isn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

The problem I see is the media is pushing her as the face of the Democratic Party....which she isn’t.

---

That's what they are doing, and Pelosi apparently didn't care for it this past week. lol.

In fairness, there's a reason they don't push Pelosi as that face. ;)

She is doing the thing that got Trump elected. If it sounds good, say it. Maximum populism.

Quote:

---

Now let's talk about that high speed rail system that is going to totally replace air travel..

---

Those are gonna be some impressive tunnels to far away places for the high speed rail.

I’m of that opinion as well. However I also see that brand of extremism fracturing the Democratic Party from people with actual common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

She is doing the thing that got Trump elected. If it sounds good, say it. Maximum populism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

I’m of that opinion as well. However I also see that brand of extremism fracturing the Democratic Party from people with actual common sense.

---

It's expected of both sides to provide the strange and extraordinary in this made for TV realty show. That's the new theme for both sides

It's like, have someone you can pound on publicly to appease the ever important moderates and crossovers, who also attracts the fringe viewers you cant openly appeal to. Ocasio-Cortez and a guy like Steve King both serve that purpose...and probably will end up sleeping together.

..As the audience screams with seething indignance

It’s s given the conservatives aren’t going to agree (which is mostly republican) The problem is level headed democrats who actually think things through won’t buy the line being thrown out hook line and sinker. This is the extreme left dictating (via mainstream media) what the democratic image will be in the future. I have plenty of left leaning friends that see it as bat-$hit crazy and feel like their party is leaving them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

It's expected of both sides to provide the strange and extraordinary in this made for TV realty show. That's the new theme for both sides

It's like, have someone you can pound on publicly to appease the ever important moderates and crossovers, who also attracts the fringe viewers you cant openly appeal to.

..As the audience screams with seething indignance

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

I’m of that opinion as well. However I also see that brand of extremism fracturing the Democratic Party from people with actual common sense.

---

Fair or not, that's exactly what has been said of our president and the republican party by both sides.

Perhaps the next thing we know she'll claim the Chinese and/or Russians will be made to pay for all the changes she proposes, as she drops her hat into the presidential race

I see it as different than that kingcat, simply because Trump isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool conservative spouting (and implementing) all their ideals. That portion of the Republican Party doesn’t care for him either. This is a left of center fight IMO and will fracture the centrist democratic base from their more progressive counterparts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Fair or not, that's exactly what has been said of our president and the republican party by both sides.

Perhaps the next thing we know she'll claim the Chinese and/or Russians will be made to pay for all the changes she proposes, as she drops her hat into the presidential race

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

I see it as different than that kingcat, simply because Trump isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool conservative spouting (and implementing) all their ideals. That portion of the Republican Party doesn’t care for him either. This is a left of center fight IMO and will fracture the centrist democratic base from their more progressive counterparts

---

But the fact is the extreme conservatives are exactly at the base of Trumps support. For example many if not most evangelicals are convinced he is either here to usher in the second coming or deliver the country into a heaven here on earth. I know them and have seen that stated by enough to trust in the sample size. Now I understand the president also has the support of many less extreme conservatives but there is no doubt that the extreme right fuels the flames of discord equal to the extreme left. And that both figure into the plans of our president and Ocasio-Cortez respectively. That's why the president kiind of apppreciates her.

The most extreme QAnon followers who are touting our president as judge, jury, and even as the behind the scenes executioner of former President Bush, John McCain and every democrat and republican moderate they are secretly hauling off to Gitmo as we speak. Well, those are the extremes and form a cult'ish political following as extreme as any in the history of our country. At least equal to the most extreme left.
The less extreme is still ardent in their support of the president over even the precepts the country is founded upon, and will admit it.

Now these are still extremes I am talking about but they number in the millions and are now organized where at one time they were not. Social media has changed the game for both parties, and the media has no choice but to cater to such a growing demographic.

I read an article from January that stated.

“I aspire to be the conservative AOC,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told POLITICO. Gaetz, an outspoken 36-year-old in his second term who has achieved a measure of prominence as a highly visible Trump defender, said there’s just one problem with that aspiration: “I can’t dance for ****.”

"AOC has what I call 'gameness' or competitive heart — the combination of grit, determination, fighting spirit that you can't coach,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, told POLITICO. “You either have it or you don't, and she has it big league."


Which I translate into someone who is not afraid to use extreme measures and sleep with extreme bedfellows to assure their individual success.

So we will have to disagree on the similarities I see as pretty evident, and even undeniable.

And I dont intend this as a knock on the President. It is something I believe he invented and it's inevitable that if it succeeds, and doesn't fracture the party for one side, the other will adopt it for themselves.

Thats not a good thing imo.

All I can say is you were not paying attention in the last election then. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan flipped simply because Trump addressed populist issues directly to them, and Clinton didn’t. Whether the action taken to address those campaign remains to be seen..
What is going on in the Democratic Party with AOC will not fix the issue. If anything it’s making the gap wider and putting other candidates in the race as independents (Howard Schultz) who can fund his own run much like Trump did who will draw more from the left than the right and Trump gains re-election. Trump has a good section of the conservative base, but not all. He didn’t in 2016 either. Conservatives held their noses and voted for him or didn’t vote at all. If AOC has the influence on the party the media is portraying, its going to happen again too. It took Democrats to elect him in 2016 and the continual drone of socialist ideals from the left will bring the same result again.

As a conservative, Im all for the attention she is getting and all for all the democrat presidential candidates jumping on the bandwagon. Middle/mainstream America hears the word "socialism" and runs. The left base might love it but its middle america/independents that decide elections. Its how Trump won because he realky is more of a centrist than anything. One might not like his personal style, I sure don't, but his policies are fairly moderate despite how the left and media depict him.

As for ACO, I'm not sure why anybody is paying one iota of attention to a freshman congresswoman who has done nothing other than spout off some ridiculous ultra left wing gibberish

Yet it is the right that is giving her the most attention.

Still I dont think I'm getting my point across well at all. If I were I believe you would agree with me.

But unlike Trump, she has zero chance at a presidential run for obvious reasons. But she does have a chance to garner support otherwise unreachable by mainstream Dems.
And then that support would be hers to wield in support of a legitimate candidate.

And that's not saying I want that type of support for my party of choice.

This went viral.

I'm giving no opinion on her. But this speaks to libertarians too...does it not Chuck?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOnB4Y7nTv8

She can be lauded for calling out those who need calling out, no question about that. She cannot be lauded for government takeover of most aspects of our lives, that she’s advocated in the green new deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

This went viral.

I'm giving no opinion on her. But this speaks to libertarians too...does it not Chuck?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOnB4Y7nTv8

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

This went viral.

I'm giving no opinion on her. But this speaks to libertarians too...does it not Chuck?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOnB4Y7nTv8

---

Calling out corruption sure. But her approach isn't to work on it the Libertarian way, but rather is to deny the underlying rights that limits our ability to come at the problem from the money side.

In the end she doesn't believe in individual rights, and even in some of this you see that clearly. A lot of why we are limited in cleaning up political influence peddling is that it's an individual right to do things like speak for a given candidate. It's a fundamental right. That's been interpreted to mean that a corporation or other entity can take their own money and run ads for a candidate. It's free speech.

She wants to "clean that up", which means she wants to eliminate the ability of non-governmental entities to use money to speak about candidates and thus issues. Who does that leave then? Well it leaves those already in power, it leaves government.

I'm all for eliminating what is IMO an oligarchy that runs this country, a triumvirate of big government, big business and big labor. But we can't do it by carving up the First Amendment.

The problem is really simple: She and those like her do not think individual rights are more important than the larger goals of the majority. Even when it's something we all want, like less influence peddling in Washington, we cannot cross the line of denying individual rights to solve our problems. Those rights are inalienable. If we do then we will not need in the long run to worry about corruption, b/c we will have no rights to worry about protecting from corruption.

The solution is even easier: if government doesn't have complete power over our lives and our economy then there's no reason to bribe politicians b/c they can't do anything for you. The answer isn't to limit the First Amendment, we need that to oppose politiicans and express our ideas. The answer is to do the opposite of what AOC wants, which is to limit government to the point it's just not influential enough to be the center of all economic and social power.

AOC is proposing fascism in the Green New Deal. Supporters have suggested we may have to have government approved control over vacation travel to help reduce emissions. To do what she wants requires government to mandate everything.

If you centralize that much power you will have absolute power and then of course follows absolute corruption. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the ONLY way out of that is to just not have centralized power.

That's Libertarianism. Don't have a centralized power, then you don't have the ability to be corrupt or deny the Rights of Man b/c there simply isn't power to do so.

So I applaud calling out the false "capitalism" we live with today where massive corporations and massive NGO lobby groups are all in bed with Government on nearly every level from basic bureaucratic reg promulgation to Congressional laws, but her answer is to simply go farther and farther down that same road.

What she's really suggesting is, and I say this without hyperbole, much closer to the true socialist model of former Soviet states, Venezuela, etc. Maybe you could say it's more the current Chinese model, with an iron fisted government directing the private companies but definitely in charge, but if you're going to, by law, make everyone take trains and end air travel and maybe even review the reasons why people travel to make sure it's important enough to produce greenhouse gases, you're basically right there with nationalization and fascism.

The reason I say that is b/c if you want to find some SERIOUS corruption that makes our system look as clean as a bunch of nuns you need to look at governments that have near absolute control and power.

That's what she wants, and in classic socilaist form she dismisses the corruption that comes with it under the belief that everyone who works for government is there for altruistic public service. That's crap and a pipe dream, in socialist or capitalist countries.

She'll concentrate power to such a degree the corruption of "Big Pharma" and "Big Energy" giving money for speeches or ad campaigns will look quaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

She is doing the thing that got Trump elected. If it sounds good, say it. Maximum populism.

---

The similarities are uncanny. Speaking to populism because grown up nuance is too difficult to digest or accept because it is not all roses 🌹

The extreme elements of both parties if adopted fully would be a danger to democracy.

Republicans need Jack Kemp. Democrats need a Sam Nunn. Not that either was perfect but patriots who were closer to the middle and this is better for America.

The freshmen Congress woman is way over her head. She is inexperienced and unrealistic.

Unwilling to work is not a personal description that one can defend.

Some individuals are so sick they might not be able to hold down a job That pays anything.

Some might poorly define some individuals as unwilling to work. But embracing people that are unwilling is far different than unable.

In this instance she’s going at millennial voters with her version of socialism “Agenda 21” populism.