Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's such an obvious pattern here. Someone says something you Trumpsters don't like and you don't address their arguments, just make childish remarks and ignore the context. There's not even a point to responding to anything you trolls say anymore so I'm out. Have fun with your corporate fascists
The fact that you're white really doesn't matter. But why do you love her? What is she doing for you and your district? If you look on LI, historically a swing district you see GOP candidates like Zeldin and King working hard for their districts while supporting Trump for example. I understand you probably despise Trump and the GOP but it's an example how you can support national policies while delivering locally. I don't know enough about the DNC LI reps to comments on them (disclaimer).
Freshman representative without much clout is going to have a rough time getting much enacted that she puts on the agenda, but at least her voting record seems pretty aligned with my views. On a policy level, she seems great. Essentially, instead of welfare and unemployment, she's pushing for a federal jobs guarantee (essentially workfare) which has worked great in Singapore. Climate change and environmental issues are key on the list, but it's done with the idea of generating work and having the US being industrial leaders in these new technologies. Healthcare and the massive suck on the US economy the current system has needs some kind of solution. These all track with what I think make most sense.
Most people slept through the primary (which is not unusual.) It was not expected to be competitive. Her campaign was able to get enough people off their a$$es and to the polls, while Crowley's campaign was asleep at the switch.
Next time around this will not be the case. The question is, will she have any real competition. I don't expect Crowley back. I just can't see a Republican getting any traction. Maybe the machine will run someone against her in the primary, but that has problems. She's now the darling of the left wing of the Democratic voter base, and not just in her district. These people don't have much use for the Democratic machine, and challenging AOC would further alienate them, and, again, not only in her district. This might keep some of them from getting out and voting for the machine candidates in other races in the general election. Also, at this point AOC has huge name recognition. Anyone they run against her is likely to be a nobody that no one has ever heard of. Maybe they could get a city councilcritter from the area to run. But likely anyone else in the primary would likely be a speed bump.
Read this article last week about Scherie Murray wanting to run against her. Seems like this woman is a firecracker and is disgusted with how AOC has been running her district.
“There is a crisis in Queens, and it’s called AOC,” Murray told Fox News. “And instead of focusing on us, she’s focusing on being famous. Mainly rolling back progress and authoring the job-killing Green New Deal and killing the Amazon New York deal.”
Read this article last week about Scherie Murray wanting to run against her. Seems like this woman is a firecracker and is disgusted with how AOC has been running her district.
“There is a crisis in Queens, and it’s called AOC,†Murray told Fox News. “And instead of focusing on us, she’s focusing on being famous. Mainly rolling back progress and authoring the job-killing Green New Deal and killing the Amazon New York deal.â€
In one congressional race that a conservative publication warned not to bother contesting: the national GOP and its base would be insane to put one ounce of support into the district regardless of who is running. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, it’s a D+29 district, one of the most partisan districts in the state. It’s one where no Republican congressional candidate has cracked more than 21.6% of the vote this century and one where Ocasio-Cortez won by nearly 65 percentage points in the 2018 general election.
In one congressional race that a conservative publication warned not to bother contesting: the national GOP and its base would be insane to put one ounce of support into the district regardless of who is running. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, it’s a D+29 district, one of the most partisan districts in the state. It’s one where no Republican congressional candidate has cracked more than 21.6% of the vote this century and one where Ocasio-Cortez won by nearly 65 percentage points in the 2018 general election.
LOL OK? And not once has she denied any of that. She changed parties because she felt the Dems weren't getting anything done, and was disgusted with the aftermath of everything. You act like this is the first time a politician has done this. She has mentioned she felt let down by AOC, and also said she uses her platform for fame and stardom instead of getting anything accomplished.
But go ahead, keep voting for the brain dead 29 year old who thinks cow farts are going to destroy us all.
LOL OK? And not once has she denied any of that. She changed parties because she felt the Dems weren't getting anything done, and was disgusted with the aftermath of everything. You act like this is the first time a politician has done this. She has mentioned she felt let down by AOC, and also said she uses her platform for fame and stardom instead of getting anything accomplished.
But go ahead, keep voting for the brain dead 29 year old who thinks cow farts are going to destroy us all.
But you sounded so hopeful that a GOPer could win in CD-14, what about the other 4 GOP challengers?
But you sounded so hopeful that a GOPer could win in CD-14, what about the other 4 GOP challengers?
Former law enforcement officer John Cummings,
journalist Ruth Papazian,
business entrepreneur Antoine Tucker
construction contractor Miguel Hernandez
what's your analysis ?
TBH I haven't read up on most of them to make a fair judgement. But I know NY would vote blue again, because you guys are as foolish as Connecticut. But she has done NOTHING for NY, so good chance the state may vote red. Or you all can continue to suffer and vote blue. Regardless of the direction you guys go, I'll tell you this much; AOC is not getting a second term. She has no real plan for anything she wants to set in motion, and her "Medicare-for-all" plan is BS. The Green New Deal is going to kill jobs. There will always be climate change. Hell, Connecticut used to be under a glacier millions of years ago. Al Gore put fear into everyone and now it keeps getting worse. Yes, we play a role in it too, but has anyone stopped to acknowledge the climate change going on with the other planets in our solar system have gone through climate change as well, mainly stemming from the sun?
Hell, as of last year, astrologers have begun to suspect that both Venus and Mars play a factor in earth's climate change as well. There's already physical evidence that the Venus and Jupiter’s gravity can cause shifts in Earth’s orbit—and swings in its climate. Anyways, getting off topic. I fail to see how someone who claims she understands economics, yet makes horrible accusations like how much the DOD has been spending, (and then refusing to delete her tweet AFTER she was corrected and told to by her own party), can benefit NY, or the US for that matter.
Remember, this is the same person who said it's better to be "morally right than factually correct," and has also done a live stream in her apartment yelling: "so what if I'm wrong most of the time?! I'm allowed to be because I'm still learning!" Yeah, a real winner she is.
You mean the demographic is very highly educated yet can barely afford to be alive thanks to the policies of old conservative/establishment politicians? Sorry that we're young and are more worried about climate change because we're much further from our life expectancy age than old people. Sorry we're more worried about the minimum wage because we have friends with college degrees that are forced to live off of it. Sorry we're more worried about healthcare costs, especially since many of us that attended college are actually very worldly and studied abroad where we experienced the benefits and wonders of universal healthcare. Sorry we're more worried about people being able to afford rent even though they have graduate degrees and we don't really care about greedy landlords or NIMBYs. Sorry we're anti-car because we grew up seeing the horrors of suburbia and ran away from it into the cities and we'd like reliable/safe/clean/affordable public transit like the rest of the world has.
Also we're far more diverse and educated and have a greater interest in traveling than older generations, so I'm not sure where you come up with this idea that young people who like AOC are not worldly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Freshman representative without much clout is going to have a rough time getting much enacted that she puts on the agenda, but at least her voting record seems pretty aligned with my views. On a policy level, she seems great. Essentially, instead of welfare and unemployment, she's pushing for a federal jobs guarantee (essentially workfare) which has worked great in Singapore. Climate change and environmental issues are key on the list, but it's done with the idea of generating work and having the US being industrial leaders in these new technologies. Healthcare and the massive suck on the US economy the current system has needs some kind of solution. These all track with what I think make most sense.
I think one of the problems with your insight, and perhaps your generation or at least your liberal friends, is that all of this sounds wonderful but who will pay for it? A popular talking point is 'tax the rich' and 'rollback the Trump tax cuts' but that wouldn't come even close to paying for all of this. You bring up Singapore, and most people love to bring up Nordic countries as comparisons, but YOU CAN NOT compare this. There are 5 million people living in these place and there's a lot of concentrated wealth (oil in Nordic, and industry in Singapore). Even Canada has 10% of the population compared to the United States. You're dealing with 350 million people without this concentration of income. To make things worse, most liberals call for completely stopping domestic energy production.
It simply is not feasible. We can't generate enough money unless you want a total government take-over akin to Venezuela and you see how that worked out.
My humble solution are smart solutions: take what we have and what works, and fix what doesn't work. But a radical solution like AOC wants, really doesn't work in a country so large and diverse as the United States.
You mean the demographic is very highly educated yet can barely afford to be alive thanks to the policies of old conservative/establishment politicians?
If you can "barely afford to be alive," maybe you should leave New York City for someplace more affordable?
I think one of the problems with your insight, and perhaps your generation or at least your liberal friends, is that all of this sounds wonderful but who will pay for it? A popular talking point is 'tax the rich' and 'rollback the Trump tax cuts' but that wouldn't come even close to paying for all of this. You bring up Singapore, and most people love to bring up Nordic countries as comparisons, but YOU CAN NOT compare this. There are 5 million people living in these place and there's a lot of concentrated wealth (oil in Nordic, and industry in Singapore). Even Canada has 10% of the population compared to the United States. You're dealing with 350 million people without this concentration of income. To make things worse, most liberals call for completely stopping domestic energy production.
It simply is not feasible. We can't generate enough money unless you want a total government take-over akin to Venezuela and you see how that worked out.
My humble solution are smart solutions: take what we have and what works, and fix what doesn't work. But a radical solution like AOC wants, really doesn't work in a country so large and diverse as the United States.
I’ll try to keep this relatively short as this is probably not the appropriate forum in which to go well into the weeds.
My general inclination is that I support some of these measures because they are economically pragmatic and not as an economic burden that we are beholden to bear. The negative externalities that don’t show up on or are minimized on corporate balance sheets in regards to pollution and climate change is mostly put on the overall populace to pay for and that doesn’t make much sense. It is a maladaptation and is not reflective of real economic costs and leaving them as externalities means the market when it corrects itself to reality is going to have heavy repercussions. As someone who if going by average life expectancy still has a good half century or so to go, this is going to hit me more heavily than it hits older generations and I’d prefer to not be left footing the bill after you’ve dine and dashed off this mortal realm. Even in terms of fairly immediate short term economic effects, many of these have white paper studies that have relatively short pay-offs.
No two countries are exactly the same, but it’s not like they each exist in an entirely alternative plane of existence. Fairly disparate countries, including the US, have adapted policies from elsewhere effectively. One reason to do so is when it is apparent that some part or parcel of the country and its economic or social system is obviously functioning with measurably worse results. Our healthcare system is one of them where we provide less coverage for higher per capita costs than our peers and by a significant margin for the most part. It is obviously a suboptimal system for many reasons. Healthcare is often a fairly inelastic good (poor or no healthcare and you, uh, die) and the different nation healthcare systems of many better performing countries are different from each other and this is true with both countries that have lower or higher GDP (nominal or by PPP) per capita, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous demographics, whether densely populated or spread out, whether rich in raw resources relative to the population or not, whether economically dominated in exports by a single resource or economically diversified.
No one is asking for Venezuela with top down price controls on everything and a political class that is essentially immune to persecution from corruption and embezzlement. I think as a general rule, I try not to ascribe people’s belief in particular political ideology as though they were inherently sociopathic. I certainly disagree with people, but I find it troubling when people so readily point to things like the cluster**** in Venezuela as if that’s what people are citing as an example to aspire to. What purpose does that even have? As a small niggling point, Singapore is not really just industry so much as financial services and transshipment (though it certainly has industry), and the Nordic countries having incredible oil wealth or just wealth beyond what the US has per capita is only Norway.
Finally, one of the parts of AOC’s platform, and is not an inherently Democratic Party one because it is definitely not espoused by every Democrat politician, that I am very much in favor of is the idea of campaign finance reform with more stringent limits on contributions, more enforced transparency, and far more severe restrictions on legislating on laws where the politician has a financial stakehold in.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-28-2019 at 02:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
