Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
She should have made that clear in her tweet, rather than copping out under the context excuse in the comments section. And just like Trump whines and cries every time anyone criticizes him, she is already doing the same.
No, they’re different. When AOC says something that rightly or wrongly is interpreted as something dumb, she explains that’s not what she meant. That strikes me as a good thing. When Trump says stuff that’s dumb, he keeps saying it over and over even after being told it’s dumb. That strikes me as less good.
She has been called out in dumb things numerous times (how spending Amazon tax incentives on something else when there is no tax revenue without Amazon, or how banks should be liable for all bad things companies do they loan money too), she has yet to acknowledge or correct or explain what she meant. She was wrong and just lashed out at her critics.
As I wrote a few weeks back, it’s not that she can’t admit it, it’s that she won’t. And that’s very much like Trump.
Your Amazon thing seems to fall into the same sorta ridiculous “gotcha” category as this nonviolent crime thing. Imagine this wasn’t a tweet but a conversation. And AOC says “non-violent criminals.” And you say, “you mean like tax cheats?” What is it that you think she would have said? I feel pretty confident that she would have said the same thing as she did in her follow up tweet. That’s what she actually thought when she said it, and that’s what she still thinks. But there seems to be a tendency among some people to interpret things in a way that she didn’t actually mean and then call her dumb or crazy for believing it. Do you honestly believe that she thinks that NY already has the money that Amazon would have paid it if they had put their headquarters there? Or do you think she meant something else and might have stated it poorly?jon_mx said:
I have yet to figure out what she is thinking that makes sense. Based on the Green New Deal and Amazon reasoning, she seems to absolutely be convinced that the government generated wealth and revenues simply by spending endless amounts of money. She has zero use for business, free Enterprise, or banks. She wants the government to direct what the economy produces and pay everyone a living wage and provide everyone an education whether they want to work or not. She actually states things quite clearly and passionately and the PACs which propped her up have the whacky plans written down which she fully embraces. And you can hope she really doesn't mean what she says, but she is actually very consistent. She believes in a completely socialistic society which in reality to implement such insanity to the scale she wishes could only be down the a tyrannical form of government, ie., Communism.
There is plenty of evidence which supports that. Every tweet and every statement she has made, her assault on the banking industry, the plans and visions that are articulated in 'her' plans. It is all there, except she just wants to save a magic wand to get there instead of have a revolution.
We’ve been over this before. I disagree with most of her takes in these subjects, but my sense is that she desires changes to the current system in ways to make it more just, rather than a revolutionary transistion to a fully socialist system that you’re warning about. My judgment is that Democratic Socialism represents a more aggressive form of New Deal. It has no relationship to tyranny or Communism. She wants to turn us into Sweden.
This is a very insightful post and upon some reflection, I couldn’t agree more.
Sweeden was socialistic in the 70's and 80's and was a pretty big failure, terrible growth and high inflation. When they reformed and lowered taxes, eliminated inheritance taxes, privatized their railways and other businesses and government monopolies, reduced pension promises, etc., Sweeden became much more prosperous. Now they are still more socialistic than the US in terms of government soending, but they are not even close to what AOC is outlining.
But my point is that even during the 70s, Sweden never represented a communist or fully socialist system: it was a capitalist system with socialist protections built in. That’s what AOC is advocating- your earlier post is simply incorrect.
Yes, she has now stated quite clearly that she doesn’t think non-violent drug offenders should be incarcerated, but some other non-violent criminals should be. Yet some of her critics are ignoring that clear statement in favor of a misinterpretation of an earlier statement that was more vague.
Is there some interview where she actually said this in the way you’re saying it? Or a tweet? Or is this just your interpretation of other things that she’s said or written or signed on to?
Even though AOC is the puppet head, the real person who advises her and is behind her views is Cornell professor Robert Hockett...who also advised Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Her stated plan is to have high speed rails to eliminate the need for planes, she wants free health care for everyone, she wants every building to be retrofitted for green energy, eliminate all coal, natural gas and nuclear plants and replace with wind and solar electricity, she wants massive spending on infrastructure, free education, guarentted jobs and living income for everyone, and only God knows what she is going to do to eliminate cow farts. You start totalling up the laundry lists of spending and it is pretty much the entire GDP is eaten up by government directed activities. There is some inference, but the totality of what she imposes is an economy directed/controlled by government. She does not talk about individual freedoms or free markets, she does not talk about entrepreneurs, economic growth, private ownership, etc. It is all about government spending to create some economic equality Utopia. Pretty much Karl Marx's endgame.
Those sound like worthy goals
I want world peace.Those sound like worthy goals
No politician gets everything they want so not sure why you are so obsessed with her idealistic take on the future
Cool. Me too.
We definitely hangout with different types of folks. I for one have never heard anyone say they want to eliminate cow farts. Maybe the vast majority feel this way but don’t say it???
All Americans believe in what she says? WrongMario Kart said:
I'd love to hear it.
That is all I have, just like AOC, a plan which has no real chance to pass, a plan which has impossible goals. But unlike AOC, I actually wrote my plan.
Then I don’t think you understand her district.boots11234 said:
If that what you think she is accomplishing, you continue to believe that. To me she is making a mockery of the discussion and making Democrats look like far-left commies who really aren't even interest in combating climate change.
There is more to leading than just offering pragmatic boring legislation. I want my representatives espousing grand ideas that force us to have conversations about difficult challenges
For many, climate change is as important a topic in the current political climate as there is. Without someone pushing radical ideas, the discussion doesn't even happen
You’re talking to a guy (jon) who has spent nearly the last decade here attempting to refute every evidence of man made climate change that has been revealed.
Your reading comprehension must be extremely low since that is not what I have done at all.
Still misquoting people I see. Why don't you post your opinions and let jon post his?
If it is such an important issue, why muck up and confuse the discussion by making the climate change about income inequity, free health care, and a whole slew of other topics which have nothing to do with climate change? Why eliminate the only real viable solution for green energy?
Because most in here routinely are full of crud. I agree that man-made emissions are impacting climate. That is 180 degrees different than what Tim claims my position is.
...a most interesting spin. 
She is not even saying what many in her own party think.