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

[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

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

[kingcat]

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.

[Catonahottinroof]

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.

[Doc]

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

[kingcat]

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.

[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

[Catonahottinroof]

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.

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

[CitizenBBN]

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.

[UKHistory]

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.

[Catonahottinroof]

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

[CitizenBBN]

This is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Today she claimed re the tax incentives offered to Amazon: “If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to."

See, now either she's aware she's lying her ass off, or she's dumber than a fencepost.

B/c tax incentives are monies you don't charge someone in taxes, i.e. they get a tax break versus what they would normally pay as incentive to come to a certain area. But you aren't giving them money from somewhere else, you're simply not charging them full price. The incentive money doesn't exist. It's revenue you don't take from a company coming and bringing jobs and revenue you can then tax. You just don't tax it as much.

Now I'm confident that explanation isn't necessary for a single person on this board.

It's obvious stuff really, I think we'd all agree. So either she's full of crap, using this as a way to convince people who have no clue on Earth about anything that she's really doing a good thing for them, or she really thinks she's doing a good thing.

The reality is that Amazon was going to bring so much money to the area they were willing to not charge them full rate.

this is a normal business practice. Lots and lots of businesses offer discounts on rates for volume or higher dollar business. AOC, having never actually done anything in business ever, of course doesn't know this is normal practice and a smart one.

So is she knowingly spewing this nonsense or is she just that stupid?

[KentuckyWildcat]

I've not read this thread so apologies if this is a different direction.

But AOC has convinced one of the most hardcore democrats I've ever known to start leaning toward to the republican party.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Today she claimed re the tax incentives offered to Amazon: “If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to."

See, now either she's aware she's lying her ass off, or she's dumber than a fencepost.

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

[CitizenBBN]

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

It's a big break, but New York (albeit likely with padded numbers) was estimating something like $27 billion in added tax revenue from Amazon's presence. So you're kicking in $3 billion to basically fund them building their campus, but then they have a huge cost of exit in the area and you are getting all that tax revenue on the salaries and multipliers.

And you aren't actually spending $3 billion. You're just getting $27 billion from them and the move rather than $30 billion.

Now those numbers are likely generous as the politicians in Albany wanted the deal, but it was still going to be a boon for that area.

People did the same thing to Martha Lane when she went after Toyota in Georgetown. People made the same argument against giving tax breaks to a wealthy company. Now Georgetown and that area has gone from a sleepy bedroom community of Lexington to an active town, and dozens of other companies sprang up to support Toyota, if not hundreds.

Over the years that move has paid back huge for Kentucky b/c it's not like Toyota will just up and move the plant on a whim. The provided thousands of good reliable jobs, they donate millions to local groups, the multiplier effect for Kentucky tax revenue has been 10s if not 100s of millions over these years.

The idea New York was raising $3 billion and just giving it to Bezos is a complete falsehood. Everything she said was wrong.

And I'm with you, I think she just may be that stupid, which maybe makes her more dangerous than if she was just a conman.

[KentuckyWildcat]

It's a big break, but New York (albeit likely with padded numbers) was estimating something like $27 billion in added tax revenue from Amazon's presence. So you're kicking in $3 billion to basically fund them building their campus, but then they have a huge cost of exit in the area and you are getting all that tax revenue on the salaries and multipliers

You take the deal for 25,000 jobs if the estimated revenue was 1/3 of that.

[Doc]

I've not read this thread so apologies if this is a different direction.

But AOC has convinced one of the most hardcore democrats I've ever known to start leaning toward to the republican party.

Are you talking about Nancy, Chuck or Barrach?

[Catonahottinroof]

This situation is replicating itself in California too. Illinois faces it as well. Taxing business out of your state....

[Doc]

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

The point is that the money was not money lost. NY didn't have the 3 billion to spend other places because they didn't have the 3 billion to start with. The money was in tax breaks and the idea that it was the already NY's money. NY never had that money, and you can't spend money you don't have......well, the government can....but you can't suggest that the money we don't have would have been spent elsewhere.

[Doc]

This situation is replicating itself in California too. Illinois faces it as well. Taxing business out of your state....

and if things continue, we will be taxing the "they don't pay their fair share" rich out of the country. See where that gets us.

[Doc]

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

[Catonahottinroof]

I truly believe the progressive left will split the Democratic Party.

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

[CitizenBBN]

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

Big difference between walls meant to keep people in and walls meant to keep people out. Not that many don't miss such minor details.

[CitizenBBN]

I truly believe the progressive left will split the Democratic Party.

I honestly hope so b/c the alternative is them following along down the road to what has unveiled itself this year to be unbridled socialism, and in combination with the social justice warriors and PC police will end up being some kind of Maoist communism.

I keep hoping for a 90 degree rotation in political parties in this country, where we get one that is "out of my wallet and my bedroom", i.e. real Libertarianism. A majority of americans still generally feel that way, but they have no political home. I know many hard core Democrats who would vote GOP if not for social issues such as abortion. A true party of limited government, where states decide social issues and the feds provide for defense and foreign policy and that's it, would win a lot of elections.

[Doc]

Big difference between walls meant to keep people in and walls meant to keep people out. Not that many don't miss such minor details.

And its funny that a socialist would miss that distinction

[CitizenBBN]

And its funny that a socialist would miss that distinction

it has a certain delicious irony that they reference a wall put up by a socialist nation to keep people from fleeing en masse to a capitalist one. One people tried to cross anyway under pain of death their lives were so relatively worse off under socialism.

It's secondarily delicious irony that part of why their lives were so bad is that socialist nations are also the least "green" of any countries, routinely polluting their nations to the bring of the abyss due to the lack of wealth creation it takes to be able to expend on environmental protections.

The worst polluters in the US and worldwide are government or government protected entities. The burn pits of the military, the water poisoning, the Oak Ridge facility, Area 51, you name it. Companies have done bad things too, but the difference is those companies are then liable for billions in damages. There is at least some level of accountability. Ask folks in the military how those lawsuits over Agent Orange and burn pits are going.

Ask East Germans how nice that river was in Berlin before the fall of that wall. Ask the Chinese about the air in Bejing, or how the natural resources of Venezuela are being treated right now.

Idiots. The empirical evidence is in. We have had 50-70 year experiments with government control, and matching experiments in free markets over the same time period. Neither proved to be utopia or perfect, but a clear winner in terms of standard of living, freedom and even environmental quality emerged and it wasn't the bill of goods they are selling.

[Doc]

If we had a train that could get me from Fort Lauderdale to Las Vegas in 8 hours for $400, great. I'm fine with that but when it 2 days and $800, not so much, especially when British Airways, Air France, Quantas, Air Lingus, Qutar Air, etc are all flying around the earth, and Americans are taking a train to Montreal so they can catch a plane to an international destination

[ukpumacat]

A true party of limited government, where states decide social issues and the feds provide for defense and foreign policy and that's it, would win a lot of elections.

Agreed it would.

[CitizenBBN]

Agreed it would.

And it's what the FOunders intended. Even in their day some states were more conservative on social issues, some more liberal on other issues. It never mattered to the federal government b/c it wasn't their job.

It didn't mean there weren't huge battles. The battles over slavery and tariffs came together to cause a Civil War, but we'd be better off IMO letting things get settled at the state level as much as possible, and focus the national party on a limited government, live and let live platform.

It's not perfect, but it would better reflect the nation, and give us a chance to come together on things we can, and agree to disagree but not force ourselves on each other on things on which we disagree.

[Catonahottinroof]

Funny you mention tariffs. Most folks don’t know, or even acknowledge that triggered much of the Civil War.

And it's what the FOunders intended. Even in their day some states were more conservative on social issues, some more liberal on other issues. It never mattered to the federal government b/c it wasn't their job.

It didn't mean there weren't huge battles. The battles over slavery and tariffs came together to cause a Civil War, but we'd be better off IMO letting things get settled at the state level as much as possible, and focus the national party on a limited government, live and let live platform.

It's not perfect, but it would better reflect the nation, and give us a chance to come together on things we can, and agree to disagree but not force ourselves on each other on things on which we disagree.

[Catonahottinroof]

And the economic illiteracy of AOC chased Amazon’s HQ from NYC along with its $1B impact per year. She feels the $3B incentive the state of NY was giving should be spent on every socialist wet dream under the sun. She (and many of her thinking)fail to realize there is no $3B in the coffers waiting to be giving. The best explanation I can give for it is like a coupon the state of NY had given to Amazon for the tax rate to be less than retail in exchange for relocation over a 25 year span.