What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (1 Viewer)

I get it. You're not a Centrist. You're a fringe Right Trumplican.  That's cool.  The REALITY in this country though is that most of us are Centrists who do prefer the center.  You do you, Boo......but know that it's the Center that put Trump in his place in 2020....and it will be the Center that will put AOC in place if she ever rises out of her spot in the House.  We only wish that you would do the same to the MTGs and other Trump disciples that have sprung up in the past 4 years.  We don't have much faith that you will.....so you until you do, our political calibration has shifted a little to the Left.  My advice to you...get away from the "OMGZ!!!!.THESE TRUMP BOAT RALLIES ARE THE REALLL AMERICANS!!!" circles you run in....and get out amongst the Center.  If you had any intellectual honesty in your body....once you did that...you'd quickly realize how clueless your political beliefs in the Trump era have been.  


DIRECT HEADLINE: How one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington lost his seat to a 28-year-old political novice in the most stunning political upset of the year

Eliza Relman Jun 27, 2018, 8:19 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-won-beat-joe-crawley-2018-6

Ocasio-Cortez (an activist that supported Bernie Sanders ) ran on a deeply progressive platform, (pushing) for Medicare For All, a (comprehensive) federal jobs guarantee, and (expanded) immigrant rights. 

Ocasio-Cortez's message (was) that women like her (and from her background) "aren't supposed to win," but ( the counter narrative was) that she wouldn't let anyone (or any establishment) stop her, (which) was particularly powerful (with voters).

Crowley ( a 20 year rarely challenged establishment incumbent) raised nearly $3 million for his reelection campaign — and spent about $1 million ( and still lost to the upstart)

Democratic (voting) strategists — and (even) Ocasio-Cortez herself — attributed much of her (upset) victory to her aggressive door-to-door ground campaign. ( Her supporters spent months flooding the streets, knocking on doors, and hanging signs )

"We won because... we had a very clear winning message (that people could relate to), and we took that (very) message to (all) doors that had never been knocked on before,"

*****

You push Orange Man Bad.

I discuss how AOC actually won her district and why the refusal of the establishment Democrats to embrace what AOC used on the ground cost them badly enough to endure four years of Trump.

You sound like an unhinged zealot that calls other people a bunch of zealots. But it's your free speech.

Try talking some actual AOC in the AOC thread and it's possible your witchhunt for Conservatives will take a backburner to some actual political discussion.

 
DIRECT HEADLINE: How one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington lost his seat to a 28-year-old political novice in the most stunning political upset of the year

Eliza Relman Jun 27, 2018, 8:19 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-won-beat-joe-crawley-2018-6

Ocasio-Cortez (an activist that supported Bernie Sanders ) ran on a deeply progressive platform, (pushing) for Medicare For All, a (comprehensive) federal jobs guarantee, and (expanded) immigrant rights. 

Ocasio-Cortez's message (was) that women like her (and from her background) "aren't supposed to win," but ( the counter narrative was) that she wouldn't let anyone (or any establishment) stop her, (which) was particularly powerful (with voters).

Crowley ( a 20 year rarely challenged establishment incumbent) raised nearly $3 million for his reelection campaign — and spent about $1 million ( and still lost to the upstart)

Democratic (voting) strategists — and (even) Ocasio-Cortez herself — attributed much of her (upset) victory to her aggressive door-to-door ground campaign. ( Her supporters spent months flooding the streets, knocking on doors, and hanging signs )

"We won because... we had a very clear winning message (that people could relate to), and we took that (very) message to (all) doors that had never been knocked on before,"

*****

You push Orange Man Bad.

I discuss how AOC actually won her district and why the refusal of the establishment Democrats to embrace what AOC used on the ground cost them badly enough to endure four years of Trump.

You sound like an unhinged zealot that calls other people a bunch of zealots. But it's your free speech.

Try talking some actual AOC in the AOC thread and it's possible your witchhunt for Conservatives will take a backburner to some actual political discussion.


Do Dems usually target and run against sitting Dems? Then risk losing a seat in the final election?

From what I read Crowley would have won in a landslide and kept the seat had he not be targeted by the Cortez backers.

 Movements only succeed when they transcend themselves. “It’s time for everyday Americans to be represented by everyday Americans,” declares Ocasio-Cortez, the world’s most famous ex-bartender, not realizing that the minute she beat Joe Crowley she ceased to be an everyday American. The sooner she recognizes that she has now taken a place in the larger, much-loathed system, with all its demands of moderation and compromise, the greater the chances that she and her colleagues will become something more effective than a movement batting .250.

Until then, those Republicans whose heads explode at the mere sight of Ocasio-Cortez—and there are lots of them—can glue the skull fragments back in place. They have less to worry about than they think.

Andrew Ferguson is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do Dems usually target and run against sitting Dems? Then risk losing a seat in the final election?

From what I read Crowley would have won in a landslide and kept the seat had he not be targeted by the Cortez backers.

 Movements only succeed when they transcend themselves. “It’s time for everyday Americans to be represented by everyday Americans,” declares Ocasio-Cortez, the world’s most famous ex-bartender, not realizing that the minute she beat Joe Crowley she ceased to be an everyday American. The sooner she recognizes that she has now taken a place in the larger, much-loathed system, with all its demands of moderation and compromise, the greater the chances that she and her colleagues will become something more effective than a movement batting .250.

Until then, those Republicans whose heads explode at the mere sight of Ocasio-Cortez—and there are lots of them—can glue the skull fragments back in place. They have less to worry about than they think.

Andrew Ferguson is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
I mean, we've been told over and over in this thread and others that AOC is a product of her environment.  A puppet put in place by some group...you can ask jon all about it he knows it all.  Now we're being told that she's some stealth force to be reckoned  with and that the Dems have a fight on their hands from some sort of mastermind.  It's tough to keep all the different stories straight between the simple haters, slippery slope fear mongers and conspiracy theorists.  I can't figure out what they get from doing that rather than focusing on the legit evidence she provides herself.

Someone above (or in another thread) mentioned her being like Trump in some regard.  I do agree to an extent and the people who are on the opposite "side" are reacting to her in the same irrational way that people reacted to Trump in the Russia thread.  Stick to the provided material.  There's no need to add more nonsense on top of it.

 


Trump isn't the one complaining about the rich while not only hobnobbing with them, but also using that to enrich yourself, seek power and expand your profile.

Socialists and Marxists don't get to claim whataboutism when it comes to the rich.  They love being rich, famous and powerful.  In fact, they seek it.  And the lemmings will continue to defend them even in the face of such rank hypocrisy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Point is $58 is not a lot for a sweatshirt.  It seems to be the market price for a political sweatshirt.  

Lower income people asking to tax the rich isn't as strong a message as when people with money say tax the rich.

If we want to increase social programs, we need a way to pay for them.  Incremental tax increases on corporations and the wealthy seems to be one way to get there.  If you have a better way - speak up.

If we do nothing, in 4 years we will see the middle class pick up the tab.  

 
Point is $58 is not a lot for a sweatshirt.  It seems to be the market price for a political sweatshirt.  

Lower income people asking to tax the rich isn't as strong a message as when people with money say tax the rich.

If we want to increase social programs, we need a way to pay for them.  Incremental tax increases on corporations and the wealthy seems to be one way to get there.  If you have a better way - speak up.

If we do nothing, in 4 years we will see the middle class pick up the tab.  


You're joking, right? Who gives two ####s if it's political, because I can go to Dunham's right now and pick one up for $19.99.

 
You're joking, right? Who gives two ####s if it's political, because I can go to Dunham's right now and pick one up for $19.99.
I can pick up a Chiefs sweatshirt at the NFL shop for $80.  Last sweatshirt I bought my daughter was $50. 

Where would you raise taxes to balance the budget?

 
You're joking, right? Who gives two ####s if it's political, because I can go to Dunham's right now and pick one up for $19.99.
He/her/him/she/they dont even realise you can get the exact same political sweatshirt on Amazon for half that price, $29.  :lol: . Only people that would pay the full price are 

A) Elitists, rich

B) Morons 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Point is $58 is not a lot for a sweatshirt.


The price is subjective to personal interpretation of cost and value.

However AOC, as a matter of good politics, should donate all funds from such towards a vetted charity, or one of her own creation, that benefits those "who are not rich"

I'm going to be fair. AOC raised money for food pantries by playing Among Us on Twitch. She raised close to 5 million for Texas relief during their crisis. She is not without some social conscience with her platform.

However this is ugly optics and bad politics. 58 dollars incoming minus the cost to produce and sell it, whatever that profit margin is going to be, is NOT worth the media spin that comes with it.

The argument is being made that the merchandise is being produced here in America and with American union labor. If that's the case, list a breakdown of the cost components to bring this product to market. That way, if it is costing AOC 58 dollars per sweatshirt, then there's no reason to hide that and eat the bad media narrative.

This a fight that doesn't need to happen and was predictable to happen. AOC has an elite media team so I can't see them signing off on this from a practical standpoint. But she's the boss so that's the deal.

 
How about we just decrease our spending? We already pay enough in taxes.
I am assuming you are including tax cuts with no way to make up that lost revenue in the "spending" category as well.  If true, this is something we agree on :hifive:

What do you propose we cut in a meaningful way to reduce that spending?

 
The price is subjective to personal interpretation of cost and value.

However AOC, as a matter of good politics, should donate all funds from such towards a vetted charity, or one of her own creation, that benefits those "who are not rich"

I'm going to be fair. AOC raised money for food pantries by playing Among Us on Twitch. She raised close to 5 million for Texas relief during their crisis. She is not without some social conscience with her platform.

However this is ugly optics and bad politics. 58 dollars incoming minus the cost to produce and sell it, whatever that profit margin is going to be, is NOT worth the media spin that comes with it.

The argument is being made that the merchandise is being produced here in America and with American union labor. If that's the case, list a breakdown of the cost components to bring this product to market. That way, if it is costing AOC 58 dollars per sweatshirt, then there's no reason to hide that and eat the bad media narrative.

This a fight that doesn't need to happen and was predictable to happen. AOC has an elite media team so I can't see them signing off on this from a practical standpoint. But she's the boss so that's the deal.
I'll also give her credit for this, but as a legislator she is unserious. 

 
Trump changed the model.
I think he did change it by far the most, but let’s be honest, it has changed towards that path for quite a while.

Go back to FDR when media coverage and optics obviously weren’t the same. We had a President who was confined to a wheelchair and not only did most people back then not really realize it, but I guarantee you a majority of people today have no idea.

Fast forward to the first televised debates where many historians point to a great looking JFK and sweaty awkward mess in Nixon being a big turning point in the election.

Fast forward again to Obama running for President where a very real hero worship effect was in place and encouraged. Obama didn’t necessarily seem to indulge in it, but it was a very real thing happening around him.

Then Trump took all of that and took it about 30 levels above and created an entirely new paradigm. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
I think he did change it by far the most, but let’s be honest, it has changed towards that path for quite a while.

Go back to FDR when media coverage and optics obviously weren’t the same. We had a President who was confined to a wheelchair and not only did most people back then not really realize it, but I guarantee you a majority of people today have no idea.

Fast forward to the first televised debates where many historians point to a great looking JFK and sweaty awkward mess in Nixon being a big turning point in the election.

Fast forward again to Obama running for President where a very real hero worship effect was in place and encouraged. Obama didn’t necessarily seem to indulge in it, but it was a very real thing happening around him.

Then Trump took all of that and took it about 30 levels above and created an entirely new paradigm. 
Yeah but JFK and Obama were serious people, or at least they faked it convincingly.  Trump was the first guy to show that being serious and convincing your colleagues with facts isn’t necessary you just need to get the voters on your side and the politicians will fall in line.

 
Yeah but JFK and Obama were serious people, or at least they faked it convincingly.  Trump was the first guy to show that being serious and convincing your colleagues with facts isn’t necessary you just need to get the voters on your side and the politicians will fall in line.


Ultimately, this phenomenon of addressing voters directly might even be a good thing once we, the public, develop defenses against the firehose-of-lies approach exploited by Trump. The media used to be the primary defense against ridiculous lies by politicians, but traditional media (including Fox News and MSNBC, for sure, but also arguably including NYT and WaPo) were becoming less effective as a defense anyhow, even before they were bypassed by social media.

So we probably needed to switch to a new defense system anyway. It appears we're on our way. All that's left to be done is to come up with some kind of new defense system.

 
Point is $58 is not a lot for a sweatshirt.  It seems to be the market price for a political sweatshirt.  

Lower income people asking to tax the rich isn't as strong a message as when people with money say tax the rich.

If we want to increase social programs, we need a way to pay for them.  Incremental tax increases on corporations and the wealthy seems to be one way to get there.  If you have a better way - speak up.

If we do nothing, in 4 years we will see the middle class pick up the tab.  


Here's an idea.  Keep taxes where they are at and lower government spending to the point there is a surplus.  I don't want to increase social programs we already live in a welfare state, don't need to make things worse.

 
Point is $58 is not a lot for a sweatshirt.  It seems to be the market price for a political sweatshirt.  

Lower income people asking to tax the rich isn't as strong a message as when people with money say tax the rich.

If we want to increase social programs, we need a way to pay for them.  Incremental tax increases on corporations and the wealthy seems to be one way to get there.  If you have a better way - speak up.

If we do nothing, in 4 years we will see the middle class pick up the tab.  
Taxing corporations is asking the middle class to pick up the tab.  

Frustrates the snot out of me when people posit that those taxes aren't passed on.

 
Here's an idea.  Keep taxes where they are at and lower government spending to the point there is a surplus.  I don't want to increase social programs we already live in a welfare state, don't need to make things worse.
:goodposting:

That leaves our defense budget or medicare/SS.  Cuts across the board or to one/two of them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't you start on your own tax returns first?  :shrug:

Tell me you're NOT paying enough taxes.  No, seriously, tell me you want to pay more.  I'll wait.

:popcorn:
I’ll pay more taxes in return for more benefits.  I’d like to have my health insurance not tied to my employer.  The hardest cost for me to predict in an early retirement scenario is health care. 

How many more small businesses could be started if we weren’t so dependent on corporations for health care?

 
Apple affords all active staff with an opportunity to purchase company stock at a discount, to then be held or sold at the participant's discretion.  Only dumb employees wouldn't benefit by corporate tax breaks, or be hurt by corporate tax increases.  

Plus this on the Tax Reform announcement.  
Glad they got a $2500 bonus. 

How does that reflect on consumer pricing for Apple products?  Did they drop after their costs went down?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top