General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Ocasio-Cortez has not even taken office, and she's already planning
an attack on some of the people she's supposed to be working with to get legislation done.
After her group Justice Democrats failed to get almost all of their candidates elected in red and swing districts, now they're going after "safe" blue districts -- positions held by AOC's new colleagues.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/ocasio-cortez-throws-support-behind-campaign-to-primary-democrats-1000529?fbclid=IwAR0WnQX8mG-s0h-lvGE616tdlEcqKUvmPwwLLUL-BAt5ORAAR63LTOxS2Xk
The group said it wants Democratic members of Congress to be representative of their diverse communities and support liberal policies like "Medicare for all," abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, implementing a "Green New Deal" and rejecting corporate PAC donations. On the campaign trail, Ocasio-Cortez talked about forming a "corporate-free caucus" as a means to push for reform. That type of group, if it forms, could turn out to be the left's counterpart to the Freedom Caucus, which pushed Republican leadership to the right.
SNIP
As for which Democrats they will target, the grass-roots organization welcomed its members to submit nominations of candidates and potential districts to target in 2020. Justice Democrats said it will prioritize women and diversity in its recruitment. All four incoming House members who were backed by Justice Democrats are women of color: Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez.
SNIP
Still, it is unusual for freshmen Democrats to throw their support behind an organization that is threatening to wage primaries against their new colleagues. And it’s unclear whether it could trigger a backlash from incumbent lawmakers who want to take advantage of their newfound majority to get things done, rather than sweating a primary challenge.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
samnsara
(17,650 posts)
bdamomma
(63,931 posts)but we need to keep on saving our country. This is for the long haul.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and she’s much better than Joe Crowley (D-NY) so I’m fine with that.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)She was a lightweight with a very thin resume, and if she'd somehow managed to win, she'd have never survived in the general.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)That is not a mandate.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... sounds more like luck and timing to me.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)
melman
(7,681 posts)What does it mean to not have a mandate? How is one to behave if that's so?
dhol82
(9,353 posts)Seems like she doesn’t have that goal in mind.
She has not even been sworn in.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)Put her in office so she could bide her time. That sounds super inspiring. I’d get excited to vote for the be quiet and pay your dues candidate.
melman
(7,681 posts)This whole 'be quiet and learn the ropes' thing. I mean it's really...something else.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)Just shut up and learn the ropes or we would have had President McCain.
Separation
(1,975 posts)There is a very large "Stay in Your Lane" attitude. Its why nothing really seems to change, Junior politicians are told to keep their head down, learn the ropes. Then in maybe 3 or 4 years, they will get put on an important committee if they play their cards right. Sounds inspiring doesnt it?
Its also another thing that I hate about politics. Your turn, his turn, her turn, all depends on seniority and who has put in their dues. Its why there was such a furball between Hillary & Sanders. People thought Bernie should have never stepped up because it was Hillarys turn, it ended up dividing the party. It some ways it was good, look at how many new Freshmen we have this midterm, not just in numbers but there are more women, more minorities, etc. So we will have to wait and see how this all turns out.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)Hello. She has not even been sworn in yet and now wants to primary sitting Democrats. Democrats? Why not Republicans, try answering that.
melman
(7,681 posts)you're the one who said it. What does it mean?
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)not in the mood for games tonight.
nite.
All I did was ask what it means to not have a mandate. A very simple question.
You are apparently unwilling to answer. And I'm the one playing a game? lol I don't think so.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)I see we've gotten to the part where you condescendingly try to make it about me as if I've done something stupid. Except you forgot to tell me I was a 'hoot' this time.
I'm not sure what the point of all that is but you do it every time. Whatever. I can handle it.
Still, what we're left with is your refusal to answer a very simple question. You said there was no mandate.
I asked what that means. And you will not say.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)I also know that you know what it means. 
pwb
(11,294 posts)Thats what they want. They are on a mission against this young lady.
But you do realize you just kicked it too. lol
But seriously, you are right it is best to ignore it. It's just that the idea that someone who 'doesn't have a mandate' is somehow less legitimate and should know their place..etc..which is what the point of all that was even if they wouldn't admit it...it's really kind of infuriating.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Charlotte Little
(658 posts)Look it up in a fucking dictionary.
God, this kind of crap posting is beyond insipid.
melman
(7,681 posts)Not the point at all. 
Charlotte Little
(658 posts)Did you catch my point about insipid?
There seems to be a lot of this going on tonight. Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood. Likely both.
melman
(7,681 posts)to try to get someone to come out with what they really mean. Which is what I was trying to do. So there's no mandate...and? What does that mean exactly? If not enough people vote for someone...what? What's the point? They're not legitimate? It doesn't count?
Charlotte Little
(658 posts)No mandate means that there isn't overwhelming support for one political side over the other to carry out policies when the winner wins by a small percentage.
For example, Trump lost to Hillary by over 3M votes but won the presidency in 2016 - LEGALLY, by way of Electoral College, which is totally legit, and in fact, he won. Do you think that since he won, the rest of us "resisting" him are being silly because what does it matter that his policies don't appeal to those of us sane, kind, non-racist, working class folks? What's the point? Is he not legitimate? Do the people surrounding him like Pompeo, Miller, Conway, the Mercers, Kelly, etc. etc. who want to fundamentally change this country not count? He won, fair and square. Hell, we should all just roll over and shut up, because a mandate means what, exactly? What's the point?
Your turn.
JI7
(89,279 posts)
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Hekate
(90,867 posts)...in Congress. The House is not a campaign rally -- it is a legislative body vital to governance.
Sadly, I can think of a couple of other politicians who want life to be one long rally with the roar of the crowds in front of them. There are few for whom that works well.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Be positive because APC is helping Dems.
The rightwing media and Republicans are trying to turn Dems against themselves. Do not help them!!!
AOC is good for the party. See here
https://threader.app/thread/1062761886796668934
8. From this point onward, Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t doing what a young dynamic liberal legislator does. No, no, no! She was “protesting” Pelosi!
9. AshLee Strong paved the way for every Capitol Hill reporter to tell a story they had been wanting to tell even though the narrative” was based on a falsehood: that this unruly mob can’t be controlled.
10. This “narrative” drew the ire of liberals who would have otherwise cheered Ocasio-Cortez. It rekindled the battle between the youngs and the olds, between “centrists” and “leftists,” and between “insurgents” and “the establishment.”
11. Worse, it inspired some liberals to trot out the old (often vaguely sexist) nomenclature: Ocasio-Cortez was grandstanding. She was showboating. She was this, that, and whatever. Too many liberals accepted as true what liberalism’s enemies said about it and them.
12. Thing is, when you actually listen to the women, a different picture comes to light. Not only was Ocasio-Cortez doing what young dynamic liberal legislators are supposed to do—bring new energy and new ideas to the table—
13. she was charting her own course while forging alliances with established powers. She created a bridge between an energized under-30 base & the party’s leadership. She’ll likely be an invaluable ally as Pelosi plots a way forward.
14. Few can say they’ve accomplished more on their first day.
Cha
(297,818 posts)out, too.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)We should just be careful not to help conservatives attack a Democrat.
Cha
(297,818 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Or is this just an offshoot? Apparently AOC can do no wrong, and she isn't even seated yet. Why not wait to see if she actually accomplishes something other than being elected? And without working to primary Democrats?
At least the demigod of the original cult had some years in the Congress. Didn't accomplish much, but he was there.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)You are, of course, free to make your own choices.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Where did you get that I stand with Republicans from my post? Quote it, please. Thank you.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)You’re free to choose.
Goodnight!
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)I spoke my piece a few days ago about AOC and got hammered, I'll leave it at this.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)
calimary
(81,527 posts)to get us all bickering and fighting amongst ourselves when we need to UNITE. And be shoulder-to-shoulder against a bigger and more clear enemy: the GOP!!! THEY’RE the bad guys here whom we should be in lockstep together to thwart. And overcome. And subdue. And soundly DEFEAT.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,937 posts)I'm sick and tired of constant electioneering. Legislate something and don't consider losing your job. Just do it. They haven't even been sworn in yet - and are planning to not go all out in office?
Eh? She needs to be primaried. If she can act like this - then I can type it at DU - before she's even been sworn into office.
Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #8)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,925 posts)Activists from way back. We, however, know it's best to go after repug incumbents than Democratic incumbents as we can work with Dems.
Repugs? No.
Response to brush (Reply #24)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,818 posts)know it's best to go after gop incumbents.
This isn't a pissing contest about who's been here the longest.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)Or at least that how it seems to be.
But that's fine. YOU have been here a while. The fact that this board has morphed into what it is - this "I don't like him/her because he/she isn't exactly as I prefer" bullshit is frankly not only alarming, but god damned disgusting. And since you've been here as long as you have, I KNOW you have watched it happen.
This constant back and forth, I like/love him/her to I hate him/her over and over again. It's nauseating.
OH WOW! LOOK WHAT BILL MAHER SAID! HE'S ON OUR SIDE!
OH WOW! LOOK WHAT BILL MAHER SAID! I HATE HIM!
OH LOOK! A YOUNG WOMAN/MAN OF COLOR/ETHNICITY/RELIGION/LACK OF RELIGION HAS JUST BEEN ELECTED AND THEY ARE SURE TO ROCK THE BOAT ! YAY!
OH LOOK! A YOUNG WOMAN/MAN OF COLOR/ETHNICITY/RELIGION/LACK OF RELIGION HAS JUST BEEN ELECTED! AND THEY ARE ROCKING THE BOAT IN A WAY I DON'T APPROVE! BOOO!
And before you tell me some silly bullshit about how I can go to any other part of the internet I want to or I don''t have to open this website or pay attention to any threads, please. Please, please please. Democratic Underground has lost a FUCK TON of good and decent liberals and progressives over the years PRECISELY BECAUSE of the sentiments expressed in repeated threads like this AND THAT MAKES DU SUCK.
I put up a thread the other day calling out this bullshit, offering a large bus to throw people under and someone, likely SEVERAL someones got their noses bent right the fuck out of joint because...oh.,.,.I don't know...perhaps saw themselves in it? And it got alerted on and hidden. Why? This used to be a board where people could take a fucking joke. Or perhaps a ribbing. Or be told they were full of shit and not lose their shit because of it.
The active members of this forum seem to have shifted to an area that not only lacks an open mind, but seems to be sitting on their collective front porch, knitting away and yelling at all the kids walking on the fucking sidewalk to stay off my lawn!
I've said this before, I'll say it again here;
Just because I am not fully on the wagon some are riding on, I am assumed to completely off of it.
And FWIW, I don't feel I need to be told how it is by people who haven't been here long enough to remember BigMcLargeHuge or OPERATIONMINDCRIME or Bob Boudelang.
Fuck that noise.
Cha
(297,818 posts)going after Dems.
she LOST when she went after Sharice Davids, Gretchen Whitmer, and Lacy Clay.
Response to Cha (Reply #41)
Post removed
Cha
(297,818 posts)That's all you have.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)What you have apparently, is a bullshit, sarcastic "worlds tiniest violin" smiley referencing a person who is not only breaking new ground with her mere presence on The Hill, but offers a true alternative voice for millions of Americans who are tired of the wishy washy bullshit "left" that has so eagerly followed the right...to the fucking right.
Yes, MS Cortez will be serenaded by your tiny violin.
I hope she is followed by so many of like mind you'll need the entire string section of the New York Philharmonic to keep up.
Cha
(297,818 posts)
SixString
(1,057 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)Thekaspervote
(32,809 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)
brush
(53,925 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2018, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)
progressives win. I stated that most here ARE progressives, who btw, know it's best to go after repug incumbents and not Democratic incumbents as you can work with Dems,
What is the problem?
And btw, being a progressive is not measured by how long one has been posting on DU.
FYI, my activism long predates DU's founding.
TeamPooka
(24,264 posts)Cha
(297,818 posts)sheshe2
(83,967 posts)How do you justify a 29 year olds length of service? She campaigned for a year, year and a half? Mostly out of her district.
I've watched this board and participated in it for over 15 years. I'm quite sure I don't need someone who hasn't been on here longer that 2 election cycles to tell me how things are.
Yet here is AOC not even sworn in telling Democrats that she will advocate primaries against sitting Democrats. ...her very own colleges that she has not even met. She was all over TV today. How do you justify that?
Your words. Think about that and AOC. Think about it.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Small-Axe
(359 posts)15 tears "online?"
Ha. Newb.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)Just can't do it.
If you don't like how things are, run for office, just like Ms. Cortez did.
She is known by many in the AA group as JAG. She has not had time to post much during the primaries, though you can catch some of her updates, because as a PROGRESSIVE she has been pounding the pavement with a broken foot. She is chairing Democratic meetings and doing everything she can to elect DEMOCRATS....and she did, her district won.
She is walking the walk. She works behind the scenes getting it done. Not every PROGRESSIVE person needs to be in the limelight to be one. Some work behind the scenes.
Cha
(297,818 posts)are calling her out.
See how that works.
I'm very Pleased that Progressives Sharice Davids, Gretchen Whitmer, and Lacy Clay won their primaries that AOC was out there campaigning against.
And, they went on to WIN in the GE!
JCanete
(5,272 posts)you mentioned. What an unfortunate omission of details for the sake of framing.
Cha
(297,818 posts)Gretchen Whitmer, and Lacy Clay.
And, she and BS Lost.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that doesn't have to be. You can disagree with her choices, but you are making the framing about her wanting these candidates to lose, rather than the other candidate to win, and those are vastly different things. Did she campaign AGAINST any of them in the GE?
No? well isn't that something. Also, I'd quit harping on them losing because their candidates of choice didn't get into the primary, as if that says something about them or their choice. We all lost in 2016. We've all lost before. It doesn't mean our choice was wrong.
Cha
(297,818 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)mcar
(42,403 posts)before she starts her campaign to primary other Democrats. Tell me again why she's making this threat against members of her own party rather than fighting Republicans?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)chances in the GE and she's fighting for the issues that matter, which in my opinion, ultimately helps us in the GE....so that's your answer.
xmas74
(29,676 posts)That made national news.
She backed Brent Welder and made claims that Sharice Davids was a corporate hack.
I live in Missouri, closer to KC than StL but I still heard all the election news statewide. Everyone heard about Clay and I'm an hour from KS-3 so her comments were replayed on the nightly news about Davids.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Nothing anti-democratic party about it. Making distinctions between candidates is also entirely reasonable. Emphasizing that somebody was campaigning AGAINST rather than FOR a differnt democrat is the point I find obnoxious.
George II
(67,782 posts)There's a difference between fundraising and electioneering. A BIG difference.
still_one
(92,454 posts)primaried, because I am a f**king idiot, and even though the midterms had more than their share of Democratic incumbents that were primaried, how was I to know?
After the Democratic party's amazing gains in the House, this seems like such a relevant, unifying message to give at this particular time, especially in light of the situation that Representative Cortez will supposedly be working with those incumbents
I can hardly wait to hear what the next unifying message from Representative Cortez is
Small-Axe
(359 posts)if they have supposed colleagues calling for them to be primaried.
I suspect we don't share the definition of what it means to be "progressive."
Why would any DUers back this stuff?
betsuni
(25,703 posts)I think what Michael Moore said sums it up: "I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock to social progress than Trump is."
"Progressives" think Democrats are a greater roadblock to progress than Republicans, it seems.
babylonsister
(171,102 posts)voices here who seem to HAVE to have a target, and I notice especially when it's a Dem, which is often. I wish they'd go after the actual enemy, but that rarely happens.
Cha
(297,818 posts)"elite" and "weak". And, when dems primary sitting Democrats like Lacy Clay Jr.. and promise to primary more Democrats in 2020.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...I don't believe this Politico article.
The anti-AOC contingent has made repeated attempts to marginalize this progressive Democratic away from the party, all the while complaining about her somehoiw working against Democrats.
The lack of self-awareness from her critics is stunning.
Is there no shame in using Politico here to stir up rivalries between Democrats? The hypocrisy attacking Rep. Cortez with Politico is stunning.
“Know that they will come after you & that’s OK because...when you are on the right side of that long arc of history that bends toward justice, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that we fought for what’s right,” -@Ocasio2018
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-primary-house-democrats_us_5bf0e5f6e4b07573881f184a?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL3hGM3lMaTk3cGI&guce_referrer_cs=nN8zEYlFU-dLZUJg5k2Pew
nini
(16,672 posts)And the JusticeDems.. it's ll up there.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...she's doing?
Hilarious.
sheshe2
(83,967 posts)It is not just Politico.
pwb
(11,294 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)primary win, those candidates win.
The significant difference is that the far right DOES influence policy, its just really bad policy. What in the Justice Dem platform do you bristle at policy-wise? So if they could actually effect party and thus policy, what would be your beef?
pwb
(11,294 posts)Politico, and the hill, crap all the time. Picking on her means they are scared shitless of her.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)It would be hypocritical of her to not support candidates challenging other dems that she thinks stand in the way of proper progress, simply because now she has a seat. Frankly, its fair play for her to tell them now that her support in the primaries is contingent upon actions.
How much that support is worth to them will almost certainly be regionally specific, but again, primaries is where you do this. Nothing wrong with them. Stop being up in arms about it.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)The challenger usually doesn't succeed in anything but making the incumbent more vulnerable, because the incumbent has to fight a battle from the left AND from the right.
What do I bristle at, policy-wise? I'm not a Democratic Socialist, as most of the justice Democrats are.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Also, that's a bummer....what then, specifically do you not like that is on the typical Democratic Socialist platform. Hopefully you didn't just distance yourself because you don't like the name or tone, but that there are instead actual policy positions we can disagree about.
Also, hopefully, if we really do have policy disagreements, you at least, will never be the one to come into a post and say that basically everybody wants the same things and that there's no daylight between democratic socialists and mainstream democrats, just a lot of unnecessary grandstanding.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)Unlike DS's, I believe in well-regulated capitalism with a strong safety net.
Here is a sample, from the website of the Democratic Socialists of America.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)things? Your version, I'm sad to say, will continue to look like what we have, because money will continue to influence what our politics looks like, and the few will still have the most powerful say.
The natural conclusion of unfettered capitalism is of course mega-corporations and massive consolidation, but frankly, the natural conclusion of well regulated capitalism that can still be influenced by money, is ultimately, regulation with massive fissures in it that can be exploited. How do you even get money out of politics when money continues to influence the winners and losers who would decide that? How would you get money out of politics, particularly if you aren't even going to support those candidates campaigning for it?
Small-Axe
(359 posts)Democratic incumbents?
Who is doing the "unnecessary grandstanding?"
JCanete
(5,272 posts)times, but only when the unicorn argument wasn't convenient. I was saying I hope I don't hear that kind of argument from the Pnwmom.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)then battle a general election opponent from the RIGHT, they will be worse off than if they can save all their campaign funds for the general election and only battle an opponent on the right.
And I have never said there's no daylight between democratic socialists and mainstream democrats. For one thing, the most prominent DS has a record on gun rights that I disagree with.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that energized primaries bring more money to campaigns, give the candidates more name recognition going into the GE, and excite more people...maybe even get more people registered so that they can vote going into the GE.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2018, 07:49 PM - Edit history (2)
Jake Tapper asked her some basic questions that she failed to answer at all
JCanete
(5,272 posts)he did it in the closing, which didn't give her a chance to respond anyway....but his math was utter bullshit, as I hope you follow.
He literally got an answer to her about 32 trillion of his made-up 40 trillion dollar figure, which would have been a savings compared to the 34 trillion we currently spend, and he subtracted the 32 trillion from the 34 trillion and turned her response into only accounting for 2 trillion of the 40 trillion he was talking about. "I guess we're not going to get an answer to the other 38 trillion dollars" .har har har...
That's utter garbage, am I right?
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)No, you are wrong. Facts are more powerful than magical thinking. Jake Tapper used facts from credible sources. Tapper's facts are real and can verified in the real world. AOC used magical thinking to respond and ended up looking bad.
Facts are important in the real world. Here, a real journalist used real facts and it was sad to see that AOC was not prepared and looked really bad. Magic does not work in the real world and the only response that AOC had was to rely on magical thinking. I like fact and I like living in the real world where facts are important.
Tapper did a good and professional job here.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)or you just don't give a shit that he was wrong and are going to hold onto your narrative. Do the math and come back to me. Otherwise I'm not going to spend any more time on Tapper with you. He tried to do a hit piece and literally garbled the math to the tune of 32 trillion to make his point. That's pretty shitty.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Facts are important in the real world. Tapper used facts that are accurate and which are common knowledge to those of us who do not believe in magic and live in the real world. You proved nothing in your post other than the fact that you can not accept facts or numbers that do not agree with the magical thinking necessary to believe in a magical voter revolutions. You have presented no facts to back up your claims.
Again, Tapper used numbers that are from real studies that are called facts in the real world. The fact that you do not like these numbers and facts is meaningless. AOC was not able to deal with these facts and numbers and so resorted to magical thinking catch phrases that it was clear that she did not understand.
You do know that budgets and funding has to rely on real numbers. Society may save money using a single payer system if you buy the unrealistic assumptions but for such a system to work, one must find tax or revenues to pay the doctors and other providers. If magic worked, sanders magical single payer plan would have been adopted in Vermont.
Again, the real world is a nice place even though magic does not work. Tapper used what are called facts in the real world. Tapper's facts are real and are based on studies that I have seen in the real world. The fact that you do not like these facts and believe in magic is amusing to me.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)trillion. Either prove otherwise or stfu.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)To me this is rather basic but let me explain. In the real world, a governmental entity must spend real money that comes from taxes or governmental borrowings. AOC is talking about hypothetical
or magical savings that will accrue to the society if the unrealistic assumptions on which these magical savings are based come true. These societal savings are so speculative that that they are amusing and are based on truly magical thinking.
State and local governments cannot spend hypothetical or magical societal savings but have to either borrow money or use tax revenues to pay for the doctors and health benefits needed to make these programs work in the real world. The government may be indirectly benefited by these hypothetical or magical savings, a government can not spend these magical savings. The doctors and other providers must be paid in cash which a governmental entity can only do by collecting tax revenues or borrowing.
If magical societal savings were real, then Vermont and other states would have adopted the magical sanders single payer plan. sanders has been unable to convince his home state of Vermont to adopt his magical plan because there is no way to pay for it in the real world.
It has been decades since my last accounting course but I was able to pass the CPA exam even though I waited until after law school to take this exam. Governments cannot spend more than what they collect in tax revenues or what they are able to borrow. Assuming that the magical thinking and magical assumptions underlying the supposed societal benefits are true (and this is very doubtful), these savings are not tax revenues and the governmental entities can not use these theoretical or hypothetical savings to pay for these programs. This is called "fund accounting" in the real world and in the real world debits have to equal the credits.
Tapper understands these simple concepts and was correct in his analysis. I like living in the real world even though magic does not work in the real world (in my world, debits have to equal credits and one cannot spend magical savings). I like math and I understand that a government cannot tax made up or magical societal savings that are based on very unrealistic assumptions. In the real world magic does not work and we are bound by something called math. Tapper used facts and these facts were accurate.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)dollar cost in government spending is a Koch brother's funded study's number. The thing about that number is that Americans pay 34 trillion dollars for healthcare now.
And bullshit with the lamest ass argument that if something hasn't been done its because it can't be done. Quit using examples of states not doing this as examples that they simply did the math and couldn't pull it off. Granted, there can be political costs that they may have weighed, but that's an entirely different beast than what is possible. . We could have said that about Social Security. "Hasn't been done ...thus can't be..."
As to the government using hyppothetical savings to pay for things...what? We would tax higher. Taht's a given. People would pay more in taxes, they'd just pay less or nothing in private insurance. Corporations would pay more in taxes. Quit with the "magic" bullshit. This is doable and there's nothing magic about how taxes work...nor hypothetical.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)The real world is a nice place. Tapper read the studies being cited and actually understood the concepts and facts being cited. Tapper asked questions based on these facts and AOC did not answer these questions. It is clear to me that you have not read the material and you are totally wrong in your claims. American may pay $34 trillion for health care but that does not mean that the federal government can assume that obligation and undertake these payments without raising taxes by this amount. Watch the Tapper interview. That is the question that Tapper asked AOC and AOC tried to use magical cost savings to explain how she was gong to pay for this program. Tapper correctly cited the facts and I am glad that you have admitted that Tapper was right and that AOC was wrong.
As for raising taxes, there is a reason why sanders has utterly and completely failed in getting Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan. The real world is a nice place but magic does not work. If magic did work, then sanders magical single payer plan would have been adopted.
Tapper asked AOC how she was going to pay for her programs. These programs would cost $40 trillion and she only identified $2 trillion in new governmental revenue. If AOC had admitted that for these programs to be adopted, we would to raise another $38 billion in tax revenues, then Tapper would have stopped. Instead of answering Tapper's question, AOC lied about how these programs could be paid for and claimed that magical hypothetical societal savings are the same as tax revenues and would pay for these programs. AOC should had admitted just as you just did that AOC and sanders want to raise an additional $40 trillion in taxes to pay for these programs.
Magic does not work in the real world. Magical societal savings are not tax revenues. I am glad that you admit that to adopt AOC's programs an additional $40 trillion in new taxes are needed. I like living in the real world where magic does not work and where governments cannot spend magical hypothetical societal savings.
Again, Tapper was correct. AOC did not explain how she was going to pay for her programs. Tapper used facts and these facts were totally correct. Thank you for admitting that Tapper was correct
JCanete
(5,272 posts)way we would do this. The point is it would still save us money, given that we pay in to our private insurance now.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Jake Tapper asked if there would be more taxes and AOC denied this based on her magical societal hypothetical savings. If AOC had been honest and admitted that $40 trillion in new taxes are needed for her programs, then Tapper would have stopped. AOC refused to admit this and Tapper was correct to point this out.
I am glad that you agree that Tapper was correct Tapper is a real journalist and it was sad that AOC refused to answer his questions
JCanete
(5,272 posts)numbers suggest it would. Thank you for pretending i'm admitting to something even though nothing at all you could point to that I've said does that, which, I assume, is why you don't pick anything that I've actually said out to prove your point. Feel free to do that though.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I enjoy the fact that you are admitting that Tapper was right and AOC was wrong. AOC denied that tax increases are necessary to pay for her silly proposals. Tapper was correct in his comments
JCanete
(5,272 posts)idea where tapper pulled that number he mentions out of his ass. I can't find it in the wild. Other articles suggest that taxes would be raised to cover that 32 trillion.
What never ever happens is Cortez denying that there would be a tax increase. But hey...give me a time-stamp on her saying that.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)AOC identifies new taxes for approximately $2 trillion of new revenues and then relies on magical and hypothetical societal savings to pay for the other $38 trillion of the costs of her proposed programs. You made the silly and completely false claim that Jake Tapper was being mean to AOC by using math. Magical and hypothetical societal savings are not tax revenues and cannot be used to pay for all of AOC's amusing programs. I like math and Tapper's math is correct.
AOC lied about the need to raise taxes and you attacked Jake tapper for pointing out that AOC was wrong. AOC wants to pay for her programs with magical and hypothetical societal savings. If this was possible, then sanders would not have utterly and completely failed in getting Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan. Magic does not work in the real world
As for the numbers used by Tapper, these are from things called facts that exist in the real world You will not find these facts in the magical world where AOC can pay for $40 trillion of programs with $2 trillion of new taxes. The fact that you cannot find these studies amuses me greatly.
Again, thank you for admitting that Jake Tapper was correct and that AOC was wrong. AOC lied about not needing new taxes and by claiming that magical hypothetical savings to society would pay for her programs. Your attacks on Jake Tapper was wrong and now I am glad that you have admitted that you made false claims. Again, you have proved that Jake Tapper was correct. J
I like living in the real world where facts are important. Facts trump magical thinking every day of the week. AOC cannnot pay for her programs without the use of magic and govermental entities can use magic to pay for her programs in the real world
JCanete
(5,272 posts)BECAUSE healthcare is something like a 34 trillion dollar cost to Americans currently. She explains how taxing to pay for that would still save the American tax payers 2 trillion dollars to their bank accounts, even if government spending was directly on the hook for 32 trillion dollars more. You follow this right? We tax individuals and companies more but neither has to sustain their own personal healthcare or insurance programs going forward, and in the end it reduces the overall cost of insurance and other healthcare costs to Americans, by 2 trillion dollars.
Either point to where AOC says no more taxes or stop lying about it. I'll take either, but I'm afraid the former isn't possible.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)AOC identifies two trillion dollars of hypothetical savings that will not increase tax revenues. Again, a government can not spend hypothetical savings to society or taxpayers and can only spend money that is raised by taxes or borrowing. AOC wants to use magical thinking to pay for her program and never explained to Tapper how she was going to pay for these programs. AOC was careful to not say that she would raise taxes and instead relied on magical thinking.
If AOC had actually admitted that she was willing to raise $40 trillion in new tax revenues, then Tapper would have stopped his questions on this topic. AOC refused to do so and relied on magical cost savings that may accrue to society but can not be spent by the governement to pay bills.
Thank you for acknowledgeing that Tapper was correct in the interview and that AOC was wrong when she refused to identify the taxes she would raise to pay for her $40 trillion of new programs.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)"BAM, you asked for it you got it!" but you just don't have it. Its not there. There's no fucking quote about not raising taxes. There's no insinuation that taxes wouldn't be raised.
Ah I see, now you're moving the goal-posts. Before you said she denied new taxes, now you're saying she didn't specify them. Okay. I see you. I'm sure you're a really good person in the real world where you do a lot of good, but this is just frustrating as all hell, and I'm going to try to be done with this exchange for now. Take care Goth.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I wouldn't butt in except I came here on a jury and got interested. Here's another thing the "medicare for all" crowd keeps forgetting: under the current system most people DON'T pay monthly premiums; it's automatically deducted from their paychecks. Medicare on the other hand requires $400 checks sent monthly. Seriously, do you really think anyone in their right mind is going to vote to clobber the entire country with new $400 monthly medicare premiums? Magical is putting it mildly.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)by sending a check. It is deducted from my paycheck. So why would this be any different? I don't think its that confusing.
So whats' the magical part again?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)we have what I like to call an honesty malfunction.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)going to be differences right? And you're going to take issue with a difference that is simply about how payment is made? Welp...okay...
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)8:50 AM · Aug 22, 2018 · Twitter Web Client
172
Retweets
814
Likes
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman
·
Aug 22
Replying to
@paulkrugman
But wait, there's more. Mercatus is not a trustworthy source; it's not so much the Koch financial backing as its history of producing politically skewed analyses. There are think tanks with a viewpoint that nonetheless can be trusted to report facts. Mercatus isn't one of them 3/
11
133
633
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman
·
Aug 22
And Charles Blahouse, the author of this study, has a particular history of peddling phony arguments on health care 4/
Another Bogus Attack on Health Reform
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
3
109
506
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman
·
Aug 22
I find all this quite ominous. It seems that even in the Trump era the media, including fact-checkers, are addicted to bothsidesism -- they feel compelled to label something on the left a lie every time they find a lie on the right 5/
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Watch the video. AOC was basically incoherent in trying to push her magical and hypothetical societal savings will pay for her programs. This performance was so sad that you complained that Tapper was mean to AOC. Tapper was using facts and AOC was completely unable to deal with facts and resorted to a series of statements that made no sense to anyone living in the real world
I like living in the real world. I watch the video and I was embarrassed for OAC. She is clearly not prepared to be in Congress which is why she refused to answer Tapper's questions. Where did AOC answer Tapper's question? I am amused that you think that AOC did not make a complete fool of herself in that interview.
Tapper used facts and AOC was not able to deal with facts. AOC cannot explain how she will pay for programs. If you have a quote from AOC that explains her plans to pay for her programs, then provide it. I watch the video and all I saw was a very young lady who did not understand the concepts being discussed and who refused to answer a simple question.
The real world is a nice place. I like living in the real world where facts matter. Magical thinking amuses me
JCanete
(5,272 posts)run from your own claim and keep running. Now your making up other shit, like how I complained that tapper was "mean." Where?
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I re-watched the interview and it was painful. AOC is not qualified and does not understand the concepts being discussed. It really hurt to watch her either not understand the concepts being discussed or lie to avoid to answering the question
Here is a transcript of the interview and a discussion of why AOC did not answer the simple question posed to her by Jake Tapper https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html
But again, that isn't an answer on where the money might come from to pay for them. Let's buy into Ocasio-Cortez's case that costs would shrink if the government, rather than the free market, ran things. Let's even say it would halve the costs of the programs that she supports making into law. That's still $20 trillion -- which has to come from somewhere, right?
Tapper is doing an important public service here. He's highlighting the difference between campaigning and governing. The truth is that as a candidate you can be for almost anything because you don't have any responsibility. You aren't in charge of managing the federal budget or reducing our deficit and debt obligations. Free stuff sounds great! But free stuff is almost never free.
AOC never answered Jake Tapper's question. Jake Tapper is a professional journalist and understood the concepts being discussed. It is sad that AOC was so unprepared for this interview
Again, Jake Tapper was correct and it is clear that AOC was not prepared to discuss these concepts.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)See the links from Krugman above.
Also remember the rightwing media is pushing the Tapper points. They snowed Tapper.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)And you, JCanete, are correct.
Thanks for persisting with facts.
Truth is, Mercatus published this study. Bernie pointed out how it showed the Koch agenda was full of lies. Then Mercatus and a few other billionaire-funded groups went into PR overdrive to try to hide their error. Tapper got snowed by that PR. Paul Krugman and others came out and said Tapper and the Koches were wrong, and Bernie and AOC are correct.
That’s where it stands now. Krugman and AOC are correct, and Tapper is wrong. Thanks for persisting.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I re-watched the interview and it was painful. AOC is not qualified and does not understand the concepts being discussed. It really hurt to watch her either not understand the concepts being discussed or lie to avoid to answering the question
Here is a transcript of the interview and a discussion of why AOC did not answer the simple question posed to her by Jake Tapper https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html
But again, that isn't an answer on where the money might come from to pay for them. Let's buy into Ocasio-Cortez's case that costs would shrink if the government, rather than the free market, ran things. Let's even say it would halve the costs of the programs that she supports making into law. That's still $20 trillion -- which has to come from somewhere, right?
Tapper is doing an important public service here. He's highlighting the difference between campaigning and governing. The truth is that as a candidate you can be for almost anything because you don't have any responsibility. You aren't in charge of managing the federal budget or reducing our deficit and debt obligations. Free stuff sounds great! But free stuff is almost never free.
AOC never answered Jake Tapper's question. Jake Tapper is a professional journalist and understood the concepts being discussed. It is sad that AOC was so unprepared for this interview
Again, Jake Tapper was correct and it is clear that AOC was not prepared to discuss these concepts.
melman
(7,681 posts)None of which back up or prove your claim.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....would be paid for by "savings", not tax increases, really understands how Medicare really works?
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)There are good reasons why sanders completely and utterly failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in the real world. Hypothetical savings can not be used to pay doctors or health care providers in the real world
George II
(67,782 posts)With respect to so-called societal savings: “Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care?”
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)where did they every claim that. What is being claimed is that a M4all scheme would represent a savings over the current private insurance scheme that most Americans already pay into.
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 02:07 PM - Edit history (2)
What I said is true, and if you don't think it is why not address it civilly and point out where I'm incorrect?
I'll go back to the question I asked in the post you responded to:
I wonder if.....anyone advocating for Medicare for All, who are saying that it would be paid for by "savings", not tax increases, understands how Medicare really works?
Do you know how Medicare works?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)issues...taxes, and what the American tax payer would ultimately save. Who has said there would be no taxes? The taxes would simply be offset by the savings.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)I wonder if.....anyone advocating for Medicare for All, who are saying that it would be paid for by "savings", not tax increases, understands how Medicare really works?
Who are those people?
George II
(67,782 posts)....so I'm sure you know.
Do YOU understand how Medicare really works?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2018, 06:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Point to one of those threads you suggest exists, or one politician who has said so. Otherwise, this sure the hell is going to feel like a dodge after you made an insinuation you can't substantiate.
George II
(67,782 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)In fact, during this interview she said about some of the overall cost savings: "Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care?" I seriously doubt that Medicare for All is going to provide eternal life!
JCanete
(5,272 posts)simply proof that the money would be there and that taxing to a lesser degree than those savings could be achieved. It isn't the argument you are saying she is making...that savings amounts to government revenue.
Something like Medicare for All would have all kinds of other added-hard to quantify-value to the American Citizen though, I'm fairly confident. It could increase not just lifespan, but quality of life and productivity for more of that life-span, reduce debilitating stress associated with worry related to healthcare costs or the possibility of injury or sickness without healthcare, address employee mobility in a way that would allow more people to attempt their own businesses, thus adding competition, would likely force companies to incentivize differently for the sake of retention, and as well, people would be freer to follow more altruistic pursuits that would otherwise be too expensive or too risky.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)But what is your point? If you know how it works, explain to me what you think the crux of your argument is resting on. We have simply been talking about how Medicare-for-All would get paid for, and whether or not ANYONE has made a claim that we would not raise taxes to pay for it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....I'm just wondering if you know how premiums are collected (there ARE premiums, it's not free), who collects them, who administers the program, who pays the doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, how much of a person's doctor/hospital/prescription expense is paid by the program, etc.
Do you know any of that at all?
As for your last statement, see my post #271.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)has claimed that anything is free. Why do you keep pretending that that's the argument being put forward, or that taxes wouldn't be how we in fact...paid... for Medicare-for-All?
The details are very interesting, but unless you are actually challenging a point that's being made here with them, I'm not sure how they're relevant to the focus of the discussion.
Also, I have no idea why you are referring me to a post that I literally replied to. I gave you that her answer wasn't thought out. Its just that that didn't at all corroborate your argument that she was suggesting savings would magically be tax revenue. Raising taxes has always been a part of the proposal. Pretending it hasn't been or that anybody else is selling that idea is just not a supportable position. Quit choosing that hill to die on.
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)A governmental entity cannot spend hypothetical societal savings to pay for a program. A governmental entity is limited to spending either tax revenues or borrowings to pay for program. There is a reason why sanders has utterly failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont. This magical plan may in theory generate savings to society but the state of Vermont cannot spend these savings.
AOC was poorly prepared for her interview with Jake Tapper and did not answer his questions as to how she was going to pay for her programs
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)First, he makes up 40 trillion. I don't know where he got that number, but fine. We'll go with it.
Then Cortez explains that 32 trillion of that is actually less than what Americans spend on healthcare now by 2 trillion dollars.
Then he ends the segment saying "I guess we won't get an answer to that other 38 trillion."
Wait... she just answered for 32 trillion of his claimed 40 trillion, + 2 trillion in the black, and his math said she accounted for 2 trillion, leaving 38 trillion to still be explained?
Tell me you see a problem with his numbers.
George II
(67,782 posts)That number is as much made up as Tapper's $40 trillion. As of now we have no idea where either number comes from.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)much medicare-for-all would cost.
And as far as I understand, healthcare costs Americans about 34 trillion dollars. if its this figure that you are saying has no roots, I assume there's some data on this, but don't have time to find it for you now.
The 32 trillion would obviously come from a tax increase, and I imagine that's even in Sanders bill.
But come on...did Tapper or did he not, turn 34 trillion dollars in accounting into 2 trillion?
George II
(67,782 posts)...are speculative, and subject to massaging one way or the other based on the position of the masseuse.
That number might be in Sanders' bill, don't really know for sure, but what I do know is that the bill doesn't specify how Medicare for All would be paid.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)
LakeArenal
(28,858 posts)Realty slaps everyone down. Then you collect your thoughts and either get the job done or be prmaried yourself someday.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)She carries a big load for her age and I want her to succeed. She's going to need and/or develop outsized capabilities.
Upon more contemplation ... Sometimes it takes earthquakes to get people to know their next door neighbors...spoken as a 5 decade Californian. Or hurricanes, or tornadoes...depending on your state/region. It has been said that progress often requires a jarring or devastating event. Our own national history, as taught in schools, is divided into sections determined by wars...The American Revolution to Civil War...Civil War to WWI, etc. or cultural events, such as the Depression, Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights movement. It's seldom marked by periods of peace and prosperity and good will.
Look at MLK and those years and the struggle...scoffed at and reviled by most, at the start. For women, it's taken 100 years. I lived the Vietnam War Era...we got coined The Boomers, defined by our birth dates circa WW II. Everyone knows where Kent State is located, and that was mostly white folks.
So, before we demand purity and peace and patience of this new group of legislators, who are the leaders that will define the next generation and perhaps generations to come...perhaps we could look at cutting them a lot of slack and lend our maturity, as best we can, to their fire in the belly.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Yes she was probably in middle school at the time. But geographically she's also affected by 9/11 (moreso than her fellow 29 yo congresswoman-elect from Iowa) and multiple people around her have probably told their stories about where they were that day and how it affected them. Her district probably has many 9/11 first responders who are now suffering from health problems due to the ash/smoke as well as people who lost a loved one that day.
I was in college when 9/11 happened (I'm also from New York). I can tell you things in New York were not the same after (and still remain that way today). For awhile, even finding a public garbage can to dispose of a drink cup was difficult because they were potential bombing locations. Security to get into a sporting event (I had Yankees tickets for the game that was supposed to be played 9/11) is much more difficult and things like bringing a backpack are now not allowed (this seems to only be in the metro area as I've brought a backpack into events in other states no problem). There's random K-9 units at places like Penn Station and Grand Central.
BluegrassDem
(1,693 posts)I could easily a progressive person of color challenging her in 2 years as she spends so much time worrying about other districts. A good candidate could easily run a campaign against her in the primary.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)BluegrassDem
(1,693 posts)Just stating it would take another person of color to beat her.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This course of action makes complete sense considering her path to where she is now.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)
Or use this one. Easier to get her under
Bettie
(16,132 posts)and I doubt she's even thinking of that at this point.
Give her ten or so years though and I'd not be shocked by her running.
She wants congress to work harder to help and protect regular people over billionaires. That's not really as radical as some seem to think.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Why aren't we picking on her?
Actually I think we need more of her age in congress. It is very clear that the older Congress doesn't pay much attention to issues facing younger generations that they didn't necessarily have to deal with at that age (student loan debt).
Bettie
(16,132 posts)as their designated person to scream about either.
I love that she's young and passionate and is willing to try to make a difference rather than just smiling and nodding while being told to sit down and shut up.
We do need more young people, they have a right to have a say in our direction. Yeah, they may be idealistic, but we need more idealism these days.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 11:49 AM - Edit history (2)
and announcing plans to get others to primary her new colleagues in the House?
From ABC:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-opens-freshman-orientation-leading-protest/story?id=59165661
Before she’s even taken an oath of office, Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined protesters at Nancy Pelosi’s office and led a sit-in to protest climate change.
From Salon
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-leads-sit-in-at-nancy-pelosis-office-before-being-sworn-in-to-congress/
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leads sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office before being sworn-in to Congress
bigtree
(86,008 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
..rather spoke to the group gathered outside Rep. Pelosi's office and assured them that the incoming Speaker shared their concerns.
What you're claiming here is pure bullshit, backed by a conservative news site's own bullshit take.
This is supposed to be in support of the party? Bullshit.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)Before she’s even taken an oath of office, Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined protesters at Nancy Pelosi’s office and led a sit-in to protest climate change.
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-leads-sit-in-at-nancy-pelosis-office-before-being-sworn-in-to-congress/
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leads sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office before being sworn-in to Congress
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...it's fake, based on the accounts by ALL the participants involved.
Casting Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as some organizer of the event is the most telling lie.
thread:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)She didn't just accidentally end up there. It was how she chose to demonstrate her commitment to the climate change crisis.
...this thread is your own responsibility.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)when everyone is supposed to support the party's nominee against the Republican, constructive criticism of Democrats is allowed here. We don't have to "support" everything any Democrat does.
OAC feels free to criticize Democrats and to announce they should be primaried. We are just as free to criticize her.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Let’s all remember it is the rightwing media spread g lies about AOC.
AshLee Strong in Paul Ryan’s office started this BS “protesting” idea, and many on DU have gotten snowed by it. Thanks for posting the truth here above.
Lunabell
(6,127 posts)We need a little shaking up.
Stidham8
(10 posts)She has embarrassed us in several interviews and speeches. She is too young, isn't she still in her 20's?
demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)charge of latrine duty. There is an old saying for new comers anywhere, "take the cotton out of your ears an stick it in your mouth."
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Did you have a problem with Joe Biden getting elected to the Senate at 29?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Joe Biden is male and white and stuff.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,974 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)Cha
(297,818 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,974 posts)Cha
(297,818 posts)Democrats in Blue Districts.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)By other democrats, maybe she figured that's how to play the game.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)That is how the game is played
If not, why the outrage over others being primaried? It's either bad or it's not.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Many people are not impressed with her
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I hope that she decides to learn her job and work for his district but I am not optimistic about this
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Before she's even taken office.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Have you watched her interview with Jake Tapper. AOC refused to answer the questions and could not explain how she would pay for her $40 trillion of new programs
Tapper asked some reasonable questions and AOC's answers made no sense
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That's one of those right wing talking points to smear democrats with.
But if you claim to not be attacking her, I'll take your word for it.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)CNN is right wing? Does Trump know this?
Facts are good things and CNN/Jack Tapper used facts. AOC was not impressive in her answers. Hopefully she will learn to answer questions in future interviews. Here is a transcript of the interview and a discussion of why AOC did not answer the simple question posed to her by Jake Tapper https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html
But again, that isn't an answer on where the money might come from to pay for them. Let's buy into Ocasio-Cortez's case that costs would shrink if the government, rather than the free market, ran things. Let's even say it would halve the costs of the programs that she supports making into law. That's still $20 trillion -- which has to come from somewhere, right?
Tapper is doing an important public service here. He's highlighting the difference between campaigning and governing. The truth is that as a candidate you can be for almost anything because you don't have any responsibility. You aren't in charge of managing the federal budget or reducing our deficit and debt obligations. Free stuff sounds great! But free stuff is almost never free.
AOC never answered Jake Tapper's question. Jake Tapper is a professional journalist and understood the concepts being discussed. It is sad that AOC was so unprepared for this interview
.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You should know that there are a lot of interests who don't like a young woman of color and are working overtime to bring her down. A quote that's been floating around for a while goes something like "We can spend trillions on a war, but suggest that we help people and suddenly the cost is too much" Why don't you want to help people? It's gonna cost, but we have to work together. You'd rather focus on attacking the women trying to make change it seems.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I just finished working hard to turn my county in Texas blue. We won all county wide races where we put up a candidate and now have a majority of the judges and control of the commissioners court (the body that governs counties in Texas). The big cities were already blue and now if we can convert the suburban counties, Texas will turn blue
I am not impressed with AOC. She is working with Cenk and the Justice Democrats (Just Us Democrats) to primary regular democrats Cenk and the Just Us Democrats hate the Democratic Party and want to hurt it. Luckily the Just Us democrats have a horrible track record. I stopped paying attention to Cenk a long time ago but I see that he is very popular on JPR where it is also popular to applaud sanders delegates booing Congressman John Lewis. See
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hey-john-lewis-karmas-a-mf-aint-it/
I watched AOC's interview with Jake Tapper and it was painful. AOC was not prepared for that interview and came off badly. Hypothetical societal savings are not tax revenues and cannot be used to pay for programs in the real world. This is the reason why sanders has failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont, sanders plan may generate societal savings in theory but the state of Vermont cannot use these savings to pay for this program
I like living in the real world. I am not impressed with AOC and I do not like Cent and the Just Us Democrats. I do not support AOC and Cenk plans to primary regular Democrats.
My county turned blue this cycle. Texas is going to turn blue but it is going to take hard work done in the real world. I am entitle to have my own opinion of AOC and I do not apologize for not being impressed with her. I do wish her luck and I hope that she is able to work with her fellow Democrats in Congress. She will have to work with these democrats if she wants to get anything done in the real world.
George II
(67,782 posts) Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)so get off your high horse.
Congrats on making it more blue, that is very important to taking the country back, and I mean that sincerely.
However I am not impressed with your condescension to people fighting their fights in other parts of the country, in their real world.
I am living in the real world, and I can see clearly that we're the only country where somehow taking basic care of our citizens is impossible.
Sanders and AOC both helped turn Texas blue, their campaigned broadly and proudly, and ignited the younger generation to be active. No, it wasn't just them, but they were public faces, and they suffer attacks from the right and from their own. In the real world you don't attack your allies.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I am curious. What did AOC or sanders do in Texas to help elect democrats? I really do not think that I heard their names mentioned once during the campaign but I was busy working the voter protection war room in my county. I just got the report of the statewide voter protection efforts in Texas and I was surprised to see I ended handling over 40 incidents both during early voting and on election day. Being in the war room, may have cause me to miss hearing about sanders or AOC coming to Texas to help Democrats. None of the candidates that I know were running due to sanders or AOC or even mentioned sanders or AOC during the campaign.
As for Bernie and Texas, I was a delegate to the National Convention where sanders delegates attacked Clinton during the Texas delegation breakfast and nearly caused a riot.
How did that stunt help elect candidates in Texas?
Did the stunt of the sanders delegates booing Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention help elect candidates in Texas? This was a planned stunt by the sanders delegates that the Clinton campaign found out about and warned her delegates about 30 or so minutes before it occurred. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this stunt and declined. I do know that Congressman John Lewis campaigned for Beto and several congressional candidates in Texas including Collin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher who both won.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
I am really curious as to how sanders or AOC did anything in Texas to help elect Democrats in the real world in Texas.
BTW,if it is wrong to attack one's allies, then why is it okay for AOC , Cenk and the Justice Democrats to attack other Democrats? Is is okay to attack Democratic allies if they disagree with sanders? The OP of this thread is about AOC's and Cenk's plan to attack democrats in the future.
I really do not expect sanders to run in 2020 and so neither he nor AOC will be on the ballot in Texas. If sanders does run and is the nominee, then I will vote for him in the general election. I will campaign for other candidates during the primary.
You have repeatedly attacked me for pushing right wing talking points. I was not aware that CNN and Jake Tapper were right wing sources. I have worked long and hard in the Democratic Party including being in voter protection efforts since 2004. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that AOC did not answer Tapper's questions on how to pay for her programs. I also want to provide more health care to individuals but AOC telling Tapper that magical hypothetical societal savings would pay for her programs does not work in the real world. Math is math and a governmental entity cannot spend hypothetical magical societal savings to pay for a program. Governmental entities are limited to using money raised as tax revenues or monies raised by borrowing. I am sorry that you find this explanation of what is to me basic governmental accounting condescending.
I will be having fun this weekend going through the spreadsheet on voting rights incidents in Texas. We have made progress but we had too many ballots lost. I helped fun a program that send fully filled out voter registration forms to 15,000 hard D democratic voters who moved to my county from other counties or moved to my county from out of state.. I was irked to find out that my county had a much higher than normal number of voters who had to cast "limited ballots" because their voter registrations were not received in time to cast regular ballots. A limited ballot means that these voters voted a regular ballot and not a provisional ballot for statewide candidates but not local candidates. I understand that the state party and my group are planning on doing this voter registration program next cycle but will try to give more time for these voter registrations to be received by the county in time to cast full normal ballots. To vote a limited ballot, these voters had to go to the county election office to vote and could only do this during the early voting period. I am really amazed that so many hard core Democrats took the time to do this and the state party is encouraged that these voters are the type of voters who will be showing up for future elections.
Have fun in your part of the country. I will continue to work in the real world to turn Texas blue. I like working in the real world to turn Texas blue and will continue to do so.
George II
(67,782 posts)Justice Democrats, Cortez' organization, endorsed 9 candidates, all 9 lost
Our Revolution, Sanders' organization, endorsed 12 candidates, 10 lost
That's a collective 2 for 21. Candidates endorsed by those two groups did not fare well in Texas this year.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)The Our Revolution group attacked Sri Preston Kulkarni who ended up raising over $1.5 million and came close to unseating a five term GOP congressperson
George II
(67,782 posts)They dug up a more than 20-year old incident from when he was a teenager to attack him with. Turns out the charge was dismissed and no longer on his record because of the low-level of severity of the "crime", and he owned up to it long before that anyway.
They also assailed him for changing his name, not clever enough to understand that "Sri" is short for "Srinivas", just like "Bernie" is short for "Bernard".
That was one nasty campaign, glad he won the nomination.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...and then run for the hills.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...hell, you're doing that, and complaining about some slight to Democrats at the same time.
Game playing.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)AOC is a youngster who has no idea as to what she is doing and is making a ton of dumb mistakes. AOC has no power and no democrat is worried about her or Cenk's Justice (Just Us) Democrats. The justice democrat pac has had no impact in the real world but is very popular on JPR.
From what I have seen, I am sure that AOC will be primaried in 2020.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That is very alarming to see honestly. There is a reason we have them, and for all you are attacking this soon-to-be sitting representative she won in her district, apparently people were unsatisfied with the status quo.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)That is fine but it is also fine for other Democrats to primary AOC. Again, she is working with Cenk and the Just Us Democrats. I stopped watching Cenk a long time ago and he and the Justice Democrats are out to hurt the party. I am not impressed with AOC or Cenk or the Just Us Democrats and I disagree with their plan to primary other Democrats. If it is okay for AOC to primary other Democrats, then she should expect to also be subject to a primary challenge
I am glad that the Justice Democrat group has been very ineffective in their primary challenges
George II
(67,782 posts)..."mounting a third party candidacy against her"! The REAL fact is that Crowley was already the Working Families Party candidate long before the primary - it was no secret and everyone involved in the campaigns back in June knew, or should have known, that.
BTW, your last sentence is very true - in the 2018 primaries and general elections, only 9% of their candidates won.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I hate to break it to you but many democrats are not impressed with AOC. It is not a right wing talking point to be utterly unimpressed with this particular democrat
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)When you’re saying the same things as Daily Caller, Fox, Limbaugh, Fox, WSJ, and the Federalist, it may be time to re-evaluate your approach.
George II
(67,782 posts)Seems like you probably spend a lot of time watching/reading Daily Caller, Fox, Limbaugh, Fox, WSJ, and the Federalist?
BTW, the NY Times, Washington Post, and other non-right wing propaganda media are saying things like that. I can't vouch for Daily Caller, Fox, Limbaugh, Fox, WSJ, and the Federalist - I don't watch or read any of them.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)The rightwing media does effectively induce NYT, Wa Post etc to talk about what the right wants to talk about.
Caravan is a good example: originated in rightwing propaganda media, then eventually widely covered by our centrist media.
Or Hillary’s emails. Same thing.
Here’s a good description.
“Hack gap”
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained
So we need to be careful about not doing the right’s bidding.
George II
(67,782 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)And more than Citizens United or even gerrymandering, it’s a huge constant thumb on the scale in favor of the political right in America.
The hack gap, explained
The essence of the Clinton email scandal wasn’t the claim that she’d done something wrong — everyone, including Clinton herself, agreed that it was inappropriate to violate State Department email policy and that she should not have done that.
The essence was, rather, the bizarre and obviously false claim that the Clinton email scandal was important.
The essence is ... the bizarre and obviously false claim that AOC joining a protest in Pelosi’s office is important.
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I live in the real world where facts matter. I am not a right winger but I am also not impressed with AOC. She was not prepared for her interview with Jake Tapper and did a horrible job that is painful to watch. I also do not believe that talking about hypothetical societal savings is a good answer to a question as to how to pay for AOC's plans. In the real world, a governmental entity cannot spend hypothetical societal savings to pay for programs and has to rely on tax revenues or borrowings.
There is a reason why sanders has utterly failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont. This plan may generate magical societal savings but the state of Vermont cannot use these savings to pay for this program.
Again, CNN is not a right wing source and I like living in the real world where facts matter. I just finished working hard to turn my county blue in Texas and I am not planning on re-evaluating my approach.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I am laughing very hard at your claims. Thank you for the laughs. The local GOP chair will enjoy this in that he is still mad at me for making him look silly when he claimed that voter id laws were necessary. That idiot was shocked that a white attorney would disagree with his claims and even more shocked that I was able to cite all of the studies used in the Texas voter id trial on why this claim was silly. This was back in 2015 and I heard that he is still pissed and that my name came up after the 5th Circuit affirmed the ruling in the Texas Voter id lawsuit that this law discriminates. As a result of this litigation, the Texas voter id law was largely gutted and people can vote using utility bills or bank statements.
I have been working inside the Democratic Party for a long time. I was a delegate to the National Convention in Philadelphia which takes a ton of work inside the party. My kids tease me that I am part of the donor class and I have given a lot to various candidates and to the coordinated campaign that helped turn my county blue.
Again, in the real world, one can not spend hypothetical societal cost savings to pay for a program. It was a long time ago, but there is a branch of accounting called governmental or fund accounting that covers this simple concept. There is a reason why sanders has utterly failed in all of his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan. The State of Vermont cannot pay for sanders magical single payer plan with hypothetical societal savings in the real world.
AOC was unable to answer Jake Tapper's questions and this interview was painful to watch. AOC was not prepared and did a horrible job of explaining how she could pay for her various programs
Have fun. I will continue to work in the real world to turn Texas blue.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)I’m saying that Tapper got snowed by Mercatus and the Koches.
How can you not say that AOC is getting unfairly attacked by the media? Did you see the posts above showing Pelosi and AOC worked together, and the whole “protest” thing was originated by Paul Ryan’s comms director, then picked up by rightwing media, then picked up by CNN and the rest of the centrist media?
Re: creds: I’m a climate scientist who works with data on media and communication. I have been canvassing for a dozen plus Dem candidates in 6 states over 20 years. And I know how the rightwing media works and how it sometimes (often) even fools the left.
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)It is far harder than the Bar exam (I have passed both). What AOC is saying is complete silliness and totally wrong. A governmental entity can not use hypothetical societal savings to pay for programs.
As for Krugman, I note that he has changed. Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how
The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. OAC was claiming that no tax increase was needed which is wrong.
Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed
George II
(67,782 posts)Do you have a specific, objective example of how she IS "getting unfairly attacked by the media?"
Further, "the whole “protest” thing" was confirmed by Justice Democrats themselves, NOT Paul Ryan. Check their website and/or their twitter feed.
George II
(67,782 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's the same right wing smears that have been leveled against other dems, but they get a pass against this new representative. Fortunately she is not backing down in her representation of her district and her party.
George II
(67,782 posts)...somewhere in the country of 100+ million Democrats some are, but I haven't come across any and I speak to a LOT of Democrats.
Which Democrats are you talking about?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You support her, of course, right?
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)I think that ir was a good question
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)and she wouldn`t be a problem. 
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)JI7
(89,279 posts)Gothmog
(145,667 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...one of them Sharice Davids.
But AOC is singled out for having a different choice in that Democratic primary?
That's nothing but partisanship in favor of one Democratic candidate, like you've done here, something the Democratic primary is designed for.
Besides, claiming that AOC 'ran against Sharice Davids' is pure sophistry. She no more 'ran against' Davids, than she ran against the other Democrats in that race.
It's smear and a canard to claim Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "ran against Sharice Davids." She never mentioned the woman's name once in her advocacy of a different Democrat in that race.
If that's so damning, why is AOC the only one castigated for that? It's because it's a convenient smear, designed to pile-on this progressive Democrat which no reasonable person should give a moments credence.
Celerity
(43,591 posts)It's revisionist as hell too. Davids came in 7, 8 months later than most after the main centrist candidate dropped out due to a sexual harassment scandal. She refused to concretely commit support for multiple issues that were crucial for the Welder supporters. There was zero nefariousness from amy of the multiple candidates who ran or their supporters. Some on here are trying to stigmatise and shut down all dissent that is not in lock-step with their own world view.
betsuni
(25,703 posts)their own world view." How ironic. 
Celerity
(43,591 posts)If you are specifically referring to me then you are utterly wrong. I have not premptively attacked others with false memes and deceptive framing.
I wasn't even that involved in anything to do with AOC until the day of the sit in near Pelosi's office. I saw AOC being falsely framed and unfairly maligned and then slurred (one went so far as to use ultra dodgy rw guilt by association tactics to call her a Farrakhan crony) repeatedly here and it got under my skin. I see her being singled out almost every time, even if there are a multitude of others involved to whatever story is being discussed.
I 100% stand by what I said in my previous comment.
progressoid
(50,000 posts)
Voltaire2
(13,214 posts)to sit demurely in the back. Am I right?
Fox News is also Very Concerned.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)MaryMagdaline
(6,856 posts) beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)smarter...
Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Post removed
still_one
(92,454 posts)wants to impart, as though people are NOT AWARE that incumbents can be primaried?
Pretty patronizing in my view, and it ignores the fact that quite a few incumbent Democrats were primaried in the midterms, and as an aside most were successful in their primary re-election bid.
I can hardly wait to hear what words of wisdom Representative Cortez will impart next on the obvious
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,974 posts)"members of Congress to be representative of their diverse communities"?
We should just have a shit ton of old white guys in Congress who are never challenged until they decide they want to leave? A primary is not a bad thing. Especially if the demographics of a district have changed or if the person representing them doesn't look like them.
We have a problem in Congress. It is way more white, male, and old compared to the population they represent.
But, hey, another reason to not like the new progressive candidate, I guess.
ChazII
(6,206 posts)
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)Jesus, what is it with political extremists and abolishing government agencies?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)These Democrats want to abolish ICE
Senators
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
"I don't think ICE today is working as intended," Gillibrand said Thursday night on CNN's "Cuomo PrimeTime." "I believe that it has become a deportation force, and I think you should separate the criminal justice from the immigration issues."
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
In a Facebook post on Saturday, Warren wrote, "The President's deeply immoral actions have made it obvious that we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our values," a line that mirrored her statements in a speech at a protest in Boston.
House members
Mark Pocan of Wisconsin
"From conducting raids at garden centers, and meatpacking plants, to breaking up families at churches and schools, ICE is tearing apart families and ripping the moral fabric of our nation," he said in a statement.
Pramila Jayapal of Washington
"We need to set up a commission that looks at the alternatives to ICE and really starts to understand how do we have these functions in a way that is accountable, transparent and humane," Jayapal told The Hill.
Earl Blumenauer of Oregon
"We should be prioritizing the protection of families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful way. People should be treated with compassion and respect. ICE is simply not doing that," Blumenauer said in a statement. "Trump and his administration have made the agency so toxic that it's time to abolish ICE, and start over."
Jim McGovern of Massachusetts
"We need to start a fresh conversation. If there are elements that work, we can maintain and strengthen those aspects. Otherwise, we need to thoroughly reevaluate and re-think immigration enforcement," he said in a post to his website.
Rep. Nydia Velázquez of New York
"While eliminating ICE would be an important step, it alone is not enough to halt Donald Trump's deportation machine," she said in a statement. "This Administration is attacking immigrants on a multitude of fronts and we must resist on all of them. That includes reuniting and releasing families separated at the border, ending family detention and passing protections for Dreamers and TPS recipients."
Raul Grijalva of Arizona
Adriano Espaillat of New York
Others
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
He told WNYC's Brian Lehrer, "ICE's time has come and gone."
Democratic congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Calling for changes to ICE
Kamala Harris of California
"I think there's no question that we've got to critically re-examine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing," she told MSNBC. "And we need to probably think about starting from scratch."
Clarification: This story was updated to remove Sen. Kamala Harris from the list of Democrats calling for abolishing ICE and add her stance in a separate category of those calling for changes to the agency. Harris said the agency should be reexamined.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)I absolutely guarantee you that when Gillibrand and Harris run for president, there won't be a word about abolishing ICE in their platforms.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)agency developed under Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush's watch, is the kind of institution that should be deemed sacred and timeless, but I don't think its wise to have an entirely separate agency that needs to justify itself by deporting brown people, or holding them indefinitely.
How would this organization have even impacted what happened on 9/11? Its utter bullshit. Why do you think it needs to exist?
https://theweek.com/articles/782486/case-abolishing-icek
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)of the old INS and Customs agencies. "Abolishing ICE" is like Rick Perry wanting to abolish the Department of Education: it's an explicit statement that the federal government has no business doing what that agency is tasked with. In the case of ICE, that means the government has no business enforcing immigration or customs law, which would be the very definition of the "radical open borders leftism" that conservative entertainment keeps screaming about.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)That of course, just isn't true.
The issue is ICE being a separate agency that as such has to justify a separate budget for doing things that are generally ANTI-immigrant. That isn't a good thing.
DFW
(54,448 posts)He was one of the fortunate ones who returned from the trenches alive.
He told about the trench warfare in 1916-1917, and said that gung-ho eager new recruits arrived regularly to his unit to replace the ones constantly getting killed in the endless battles. When the order came to go "over the top" and charge enemy positions, the eager new ones were the first to climb out of their trenches to charge the enemy. The experienced soldiers waited two minutes and then followed. When they did, the gung-ho new recruits were all hanging dead on the barbed wire, and the rest of the unit advanced while the machine gunners who had just cut their newbies to ribbons had to take the time to reload their weapons.
Bucky
(54,087 posts)But yes, when I knew WW2 vets, they told stories about not getting too close to the young replacements who joined their units in 1945. Those who had survived since 44 kept their heads down better
First hand stories about real combat seldom are. My father-in-law saw such horrors, and he kept them inside for decades until his final delirium, when he lost his conscious inhibitions, and, 55 years later, started reliving the scene where he lost his leg, calling out to others in his unit who were freezing to death, if not already blown up by the artillery barrage that cost him his leg. When it comes down to pure survival, a common sense instinct either takes over, or you're lost.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Thanks for trigger. 
shanny
(6,709 posts)IIRC it is mired below 20% and has been for decades... Even if we concede that maybe 30-40% will hate whatever we do, that still leaves a lot of room for improvement.
If AOC can help drive that improvement I'm all for it.
pnwmom
(109,011 posts)than Congress as a whole. There's never going to be a time when a highly divided country gives the whole Congress high marks.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)it's called democracy... campaign, put forth your platform/vision and the let the voters decide - novel concept..
again
pecosbob
(7,545 posts)If newly elected Dems want to move the Party towards more progressive policies, it is right for them to do so. Stop doing the Republicans foot work for them. Just my observation, but blue dogs got whupped this time around while more progressive candidates won in states that never elect Dems.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)xmas74
(29,676 posts)when she targeted Sharice Davids during the primary, choosing to support Welder and making targeted comments against Davids.
George II
(67,782 posts)...got 80% of the vote in the general election. Clearly he's very well liked in the district, why anyone would travel halfway across the country to campaign against him is beyond me.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)She's on the right side of every issue that I care about, she's working with leadership, she's supporting the Democratic party platform, and I'm tired of seeing people advocate cutting the legs out from under a young Democrat that was a part of a big, hard-fought and long-needed victory.
I don't see anything more that an advocacy for other democrats to run for office. Which Pelosi herself is fully behind. Do we want everyone to run unopposed, to have a pre-decided primaries? When did that become a thing?
demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)pnwmom
(109,011 posts)demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)Celerity
(43,591 posts)
I jest, I jest!
demosincebirth
(12,544 posts)Celerity
(43,591 posts)
Bucky
(54,087 posts)
jcmaine72
(1,773 posts)It's time to stop walking on eggshells, playing nice and compromising, all while the ReTHUGS continue to shit on minorities and women, break every rule in the book, and then strut around with their chests out. We need to start fighting back. It's time for America to start hearing the voices of women like Ocasio-Cortez.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Post removed