Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:49 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
I entirely agree with her argument.

It is too easy for politicians in D.C. to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public. Obviously what we need to do is dramatically cut taxes and shrink the size and power of the federal government, in order to reduce the chances that politicians have for enriching themselves.

I watched the video and didn't see Cortez making that last point, but based on the argument she made, it obviously follows logically that that's what she's getting at.
So, presumably, because of this conclusion, you will probably vote for the republican candidate in 2020, correct?
  #52  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:50 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Are you sure AOC's diction is entirely unreasonable?
I've already cautioned you against this here, but perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. You also brought it up here and here, but they were slightly more germane so that did not warrant a comment. So let me be clear - If you do this again, you will receive a warning for harassment.

[/moderating]
  #53  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:53 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she's hilarious, not scary. Her 'Green New Deal' is the funniest thing to come out of Washington since Al Franken.
That's what they say about things that they're afraid of. It's called propaganda.

If they weren't concerned about her ideas gaining traction then they'd just ignore her rather than draw attention to her.

They know that she's getting attention so they're belittling her. This is politics 101.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 02-08-2019 at 03:55 PM.
  #54  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:59 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So, presumably, because of this conclusion, you will probably vote for the republican candidate in 2020, correct?
Nope. I'll most likely vote for the Libertarian candidate, just as I did in 2016.
  #55  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:11 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
She's awesome. I was wondering who the push-back fighter was going to be with Al Franken gone. To those who voted her in: Thank You!
  #56  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:51 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That's what they say about things that they're afraid of. It's called propaganda.

If they weren't concerned about her ideas gaining traction then they'd just ignore her rather than draw attention to her.

They know that she's getting attention so they're belittling her. This is politics 101.
They WANT her and her ideas getting as much attention as possible.

Trust me - if Republicans could make AOC the face of the Democratic party, they'd be happy to. In fact, that's what rhey are hoping for. And if they could get every Democrat to sign on to her 'green new deal', they'd do that too, Because they would crush the Democrats in the next election.

You grossly overestimate the popularity of AOC's ideas among the general public. And the 'green new deal' would piss off so many Democratic constituents that Republicans would sweep the Midwest. People as far to the left as Ocasio-Cortez get the support of maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and then only when her grand plans to re-engineer spciety don't specifically target their jobs.
  #57  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:02 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AljakpXAh7c

A pretty interesting hypothetical game played pretty brilliantly by the AOC.

TLDW: She plays a bad guy and asks hypothetical questions about the legalities of enriching herself (as a politician) at the expense of the American public. She then wraps up by showing that the president actually has even more room to do so.

I thought it was pretty well done and would probably watch a lot of CSPAN if congress and their committee meetings were always like this.

Does anyone find flaws in her argument?
I believe I heard her conclude that our system is "fundamentally broken". I wouldn't agree with this characterization. But say, quite damaged, and in need of repair? Certainly.
  #58  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:15 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't doubt that AOC has good motives and intentions, but she is introducing a "bumper-sticker" mindset to politics (not that it wasn't there before, but she's worsening it.) Shortening every complex social/economic issue of the day down into a simple, incorrect, oversimplified misleading argument and then feeding it to the masses.
I don't know what AOC's motivations are, but I'd say that simplifying complex/economic issues in order to get people to think about them, as a way to learning better that complexity, and then what can be done about problems with them, is a good thing.
  #59  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:28 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she's hilarious, not scary.
That is the same thing the Republicans thought about Donald Trump.


They still think he is hilarious, although not scary now. They are wrong, the scary part is coming. That is what they do miss, their blind support of the embodiment (Trump) of a lot of what they claimed to be against, is one big reason why then people like Cortez are given a look now.
  #60  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
You grossly overestimate the popularity of AOC's ideas among the general public. And the 'green new deal' would piss off so many Democratic constituents that Republicans would sweep the Midwest. People as far to the left as Ocasio-Cortez get the support of maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and then only when her grand plans to re-engineer spciety don't specifically target their jobs.
I think we had this conversation before, I do think you are grossly underestimating what the general public wants.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/28/181972...ion-carbon-tax
Quote:
Several recent polls show that people in the United States are increasingly alarmed about climate change.

According to a nationally representative survey from Yale University and George Mason University, 69 percent of Americans are “somewhat worried” about climate change and 29 percent are “very worried.” These are the highest values since the surveys began in 2008, and the “very worried” category shows an 8 percent jump compared to the previous survey published in April 2018.

“We’ve never seen that happen before,” said co-author Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “My read of it is that basically, people are more convinced that it’s happening and more convinced that it’s human-caused.”

Similarly, a national Reuters/Ipsos poll from December found that 72 percent of Americans consider climate change to be a moderate, serious, or imminent threat.

A big reason for the growing concern is that many of the consequences of climate change have become impossible to ignore in recent years. The United States saw billions of dollars in damages and dozens of deaths last year as rising temperatures increased the damages from extreme events. These disasters helped make the somewhat abstract warming of the planet tangible in people’s minds.

“You can experience, a drought, flood, or hurricane, but you can’t experience global temperatures going up,” Leiserowitz said.

The findings echo yet another national poll from the University of Chicago and the Associated Press this month that found that 71 percent of Americans understand that the climate is changing, and a majority know that humans are driving it. Forty-eight percent of Americans say they are more convinced by climate science than they were five years ago, in large part due to their experiences with extreme weather.
  #61  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:45 PM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
She's awesome. I was wondering who the push-back fighter was going to be with Al Franken gone. To those who voted her in: Thank You!
As a registered Burnitdowntothefuckinggroundarian....I concur. I look forward to six more years of Americans exposing themselves as the insane tribalists of the world.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:58 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,818
It's why she is both feared and derided. It's sixth grade rhetoric and it actually solves nothing. As a Representative, it's ineffectual. Is there anyone on that committee that isn't aware of the money in politics or ethics rules governing it? She offered no proposal and largely merely gave a line of questioning that you could find in a middle school debate club with all of their rhetorical flourishes. The fear though is that the capite censi essentially exist at the middle school level. We comprehend through simplistic statements that assume our idiocy. We have neither the time nor will to truly understand issues, so we rely on soundbites and memes with essentially zero complexity or nuance as our main guides to the world. Trump understands this and AOC understands it.
  #63  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:24 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
You grossly overestimate the popularity of AOC's ideas among the general public. And the 'green new deal' would piss off so many Democratic constituents that Republicans would sweep the Midwest. People as far to the left as Ocasio-Cortez get the support of maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and then only when her grand plans to re-engineer spciety don't specifically target their jobs.
Do you mind showing your work?
  #64  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
They WANT her and her ideas getting as much attention as possible.
This reminds me of the time I spent a few months cheering for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination, assuming he'd be easy to beat and result in a Democratic landslide.

The difference is that AOC is young, actually energetic, compassionate, and capable of learning, with the added bonus of not having spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory or bragging about violating the consent of women and girls.

I don't know if AOC is the future of the party, but I love the idea of young and energetic progressives getting into government. If Republicans are cheering along with me, then please proceed, governor.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-08-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:54 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Is there anyone on that committee that isn't aware of the money in politics or ethics rules governing it?
You think she was asking those questions in an effort to educate the committee members?
  #66  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:34 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This reminds me of the time I spent a few months cheering for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination, assuming he'd be easy to beat and result in a Democratic landslide.

The difference is that AOC is young, actually energetic, compassionate, and capable of learning, with the added bonus of not having spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory or bragging about violating the consent of women and girls.

I don't know if AOC is the future of the party, but I love the idea of young and energetic progressives getting into government. If Republicans are cheering along with me, then please proceed, governor.
Yup. As for the insanely grandiose nature of the Green New Deal, you gotta remember: she's gonna be alive in forty years when today's pollution really starts to kick in. Most of the dingbats writing laws now know that they're going to be gone when climate change's next level nonsense goes down; they can be cautious and dismissive.

She lacks that luxury. So do her generational peers.

And they know that.
  #67  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:40 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't doubt that AOC has good motives and intentions, but she is introducing a "bumper-sticker" mindset to politics (not that it wasn't there before, but she's worsening it.) Shortening every complex social/economic issue of the day down into a simple, incorrect, oversimplified misleading argument and then feeding it to the masses.


A younger, female, less-crass Democratic version of Trump.
That last sentence is quite a fantastic claim. Can you back it up? Take, for instance, just as one crucial issue, the fact that Trump is a congenital liar and absolutely nothing he says can or should be believed. He set a new record on September 7 of last year when he publicly told 125 fact-checked lies in just 120 minutes. That's a little over one lie per minute, so his statements were basically a string of lies with some words connecting them together, the lies issuing forth pretty much every time his mouth opened. The Washington Post (same link above) cites Fact Checker as having currently compiled 5000 lies he's told between his inauguration and last fall, and the daily rate of lies seems to be rising.

Got the same cite for OAC, since you claim she's basically the same? She was criticized for correctly quoting a study about astronomical Pentagon spending that turned out to contain questionable figures and using it to make a point about Medicare for All. She acknowledged the mistake. She's young and inexperienced, and passionate about what she thinks is right. Trump is old, stupid, corrupt, and is passionate only about enriching himself. And he lies the way normal people breathe, unconsciously, really just making things up as he goes. But I'll change my mind if you find me a cite that shows 5000 unacknowledged lies from AOC, or that she's a pathological narcissist who cares about nothing but herself. Otherwise I reject your ridiculous comparison.
  #68  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:25 PM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Trust me - if Republicans could make AOC the face of the Democratic party, they'd be happy to. In fact, that's what rhey are hoping for. And if they could get every Democrat to sign on to her 'green new deal', they'd do that too, Because they would crush the Democrats in the next election.

You grossly overestimate the popularity of AOC's ideas among the general public. And the 'green new deal' would piss off so many Democratic constituents that Republicans would sweep the Midwest. People as far to the left as Ocasio-Cortez get the support of maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and then only when her grand plans to re-engineer spciety don't specifically target their jobs.
Wow, you really are from a foreign country.

I'm actually getting sick of the AOC exposure now, because it's hit the point that the cameras point at her whenever she's in the crowd, no matter who's speaking. But making a beautiful young woman the face of her faction? Yeah, that's a shame.

Look, friend, if your guys were in control of the narrative & just wanted to mock the Justice Democrats, you could have made AOC's buddy, the hijabi Ilhan Omar, the face of the movement. You are clearly not in control. Your reporters aren't even in control of their own eyes. She's a magnet for your photographers, your reporters, your columnists, & your audience.

And those Democratic constituents? They've been wanting us to spend money on our own people for decades. That's what the Green New Deal is. It's an economic stimulus theory.

Maybe you don't know this, Canadian, but the oil companies left the Democrats a generation ago. They don't get a say in this.
  #69  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:29 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Two flaws that jumped out at me.

First, it's not a given that a candidate that gets a lot of corporate money will win an election.
That can't be her argument. Her opponent, Joe Crowley, took corporate PAC money in the primary election. He lost. If her point was that anyone taking corporate PAC money in an election wins, she would have lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Ultimately her argument boils down to, "A bad person can get elected, write legislation that only benefits specific corporate interests, make themselves rich in the process, and then bail." Which is undeniably true, that can happen. And it probably does, but there's a built in way to address that situation, which is we stop voting for people who write legislation that only benefits specific corporate interests and make themselves rich in the process. The problem is that even after we find out that this exactly what someone's doing, we tend to reelect them. Why is that? Is corporate money just that powerful?
The difficulty with your solution is that the person has to get elected into Congress, people have to notice, then vote them out. That gives incentive for people to do the wrong thing and puts a lot of responsibility on the voters that are not doing this as a full time job.

Her solution is to take corporate PAC money out altogether which has the benefit of removing the incentive altogether. It has also been reported that congresspeople spend up to 4 hours a day raising funds from these corporations, leaving little time to meet with the rest of their constituents. That's what happened with Joe Crowley. He was so busy talking to corporate donors and trying to get legislation on their behalf, he lost sight of what his own constituents wanted, which is how AOC was able to get elected because she went out to talk to them.
  #70  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she's hilarious, not scary. Her 'Green New Deal' is the funniest thing to come out of Washington since Al Franken.
She is absolutely the gift that keeps on giving. The GOP was in prime position to get waxed in 2020 and likely permanently. But the Dems have chosen to focus on AOC and her socialist agenda. A Republican strategist could not have dreamed for a better foil than AOC in the next election. It is on par with Dukakis and Mondale.
  #71  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:36 PM
jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,102
It's funny...all I keep seeing when righties talk about AOC is cartoon dinosaurs pointing and laughing at the meteor as it comes down...
  #72  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:36 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
She is absolutely the gift that keeps on giving. The GOP was in prime position to get waxed in 2020 and likely permanently. But the Dems have chosen to focus on AOC and her socialist agenda. A Republican strategist could not have dreamed for a better foil than AOC in the next election. It is on par with Dukakis and Mondale.
Aye; just like Clinton vs Trump in 2016, eh?
  #73  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:00 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,094
I don't buy the argument that the GOP is happy about AOC. If someone is self-evidently bad, you don't need to constantly watch her and shape a narrative about her.

Clearly they think she's actually energizing her part of the electorate, so they are trying to put out a counter narrative that she's actually bad, to counter this. That's why the narrative is so devoid of any substance. She didn't smile at the State of the Union. She said some words that could supposedly be stupid. She's pushing an environmental policy (you know, like the Dems have done a lot). There's the heavy lean on the word "socialist." There's a big push on how she's young and popular and treating that like a bad thing (same as they did with Obama).

It makes sense: her popularity rating is higher than your president. Adn the GOP has long been afraid of any "socialist" (by American standards) policies becoming popular. And Trump has shown you that attacking the individual works so well.
  #74  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:31 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
I entirely agree with her argument.

It is too easy for politicians in D.C. to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public. Obviously what we need to do is dramatically cut taxes and shrink the size and power of the federal government, in order to reduce the chances that politicians have for enriching themselves.

I watched the video and didn't see Cortez making that last point, but based on the argument she made, it obviously follows logically that that's what she's getting at.
That makes no sense. No politician gets rich off of tax money. Politicians either get rich legitimately through speaking engagements and people choosing to pay them, or they get rich illegitimately by getting money from lobbyists and corporations that want to influence their votes.

And even if we do restrict ourselves to salaries, there's no reason reducing salaries means reducing taxes.

I've heard some bad libertarian ideas, but this one is just silly. You don't get money out of politics by reducing taxes. If anything, taxes are the one source of income without strings, without giving more control to the people who spend the most.

Last edited by BigT; 02-09-2019 at 12:32 AM.
  #75  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:24 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,300
Hey, hey... up is down and green is ice cream and pinto beans are chianti. So of course reducing taxes will produce fewer corrupt politicians. It's so obvious; I can't believe I have to lay it out all so simple like that for you.

  #76  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:12 AM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
It's funny...all I keep seeing when righties talk about AOC is cartoon dinosaurs pointing and laughing at the meteor as it comes down...
Which phylum are the Dems in this story? Pterosaurs? Plesiosaurs?
  #77  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:57 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Which phylum are the Dems in this story? Pterosaurs? Plesiosaurs?
That’s not what phylum means. We’re the cute junior class that figured out how to adapt to climate change. Mammals.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-09-2019 at 07:58 AM.
  #78  
Old 02-09-2019, 08:05 AM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That’s not what phylum means. We’re the cute junior class that figured out how to adapt to climate change. Mammals.
I knew I was going to get nailed for the definition of phylum there.
  #79  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:06 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
If your summary is correct, I see no problem with this. The problem comes in when her policies seek to give more power to the government she thinks is easily corrupted. This is not a problem unique to her or even to her ideology.
  #80  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:13 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If your summary is correct, I see no problem with this. The problem comes in when her policies seek to give more power to the government she thinks is easily corrupted. This is not a problem unique to her or even to her ideology.
Yours suffers from it as well, although I've seen no signs that you've thought about the matter.

The problem isn't that government is easily corrupted; it's that humans are easily corrupted, and that humans like to form organizations that concentrate power.

As long as there are people in positions of power, people are gonna succumb to corruption. This is true whether they're gang leaders or warlords or CEOs or senators or principals or mom-and-pop business owners.

What AOC and others want is to concentrate power in organizational structures that have accountability to the people over whom they have power; and then to tweak the rules under which they operate so that the people over whom they have power can get the information they need to make informed decisions.

I've thought for awhile about starting a thread called "Beyond Democracy," to speculate on what form of governance will eventually supplant nation-state representational democracy. But that's a heady thread to start .
  #81  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:34 AM
jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Which phylum are the Dems in this story? Pterosaurs? Plesiosaurs?
Some of the Dems are dinosaurs, as well. I did say "righties", but there are at least a few Dem centrists who go into panic mode about AOC, too. I'm willing to be bipartisan in my scorn.
  #82  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:10 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,791
OK, so maybe it won't work at all. Or maybe some of it will work, and some of it won't. So, we find out? Keep in mind, it wasn't that long ago that solar energy was impossible. Not difficult, no unlikely, but impossible, inconceivable.

Of course, there will be problems. Just the other day, there was a major accident at a wind power farm, wind spilled all over everything! Nobody knows yet how much the cleanup is going to cost! Fuckin' hippies!

Last edited by elucidator; 02-09-2019 at 12:11 PM.
  #83  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:14 PM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
OK, so maybe it won't work at all. Or maybe some of it will work, and some of it won't. So, we find out? Keep in mind, it wasn't that long ago that solar energy was impossible. Not difficult, no unlikely, but impossible, inconceivable.

Of course, there will be problems. Just the other day, there was a major accident at a wind power farm, wind spilled all over everything! Nobody knows yet how much the cleanup is going to cost! Fuckin' hippies!
Hippy: "Wind farms and solar farms kill endangered species man!!" ...handed new sign, woman in white outfit whispers in his ear...."We need wind farms and solar farms everywhere man!!"
  #84  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:25 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I don't buy the argument that the GOP is happy about AOC. If someone is self-evidently bad, you don't need to constantly watch her and shape a narrative about her.

Clearly they think she's actually energizing her part of the electorate, so they are trying to put out a counter narrative that she's actually bad, to counter this. That's why the narrative is so devoid of any substance. She didn't smile at the State of the Union. She said some words that could supposedly be stupid. She's pushing an environmental policy (you know, like the Dems have done a lot). There's the heavy lean on the word "socialist." There's a big push on how she's young and popular and treating that like a bad thing (same as they did with Obama).

It makes sense: her popularity rating is higher than your president. Adn the GOP has long been afraid of any "socialist" (by American standards) policies becoming popular. And Trump has shown you that attacking the individual works so well.
Yes socialism is bad. I didn't even know that was a serious debate in the United States. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to socialism. It is/was agreed that the term was so bad that when Republicans would claim that a Dem policy was socialist, the response would be that it is fear mongering.

Dems always argued that their policies were not socialist, but merely a thumb on the scale to keep things a little fairer. We just take a little extra from the rich and give a little here to the poor and most people seem to be fine with that.

But embracing socialism is an admission that the worst fear mongering that the GOP ever did, as it relates to economics, is absolutely correct. Of course, with a generation now having grown up not remembering the disaster that was the old Soviet Union, maybe it will get some play with younger voters. But younger voters haven't made up the bulk of the electorate yet.
  #85  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:37 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes socialism is bad. I didn't even know that was a serious debate in the United States. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to socialism. It is/was agreed that the term was so bad that when Republicans would claim that a Dem policy was socialist, the response would be that it is fear mongering.

Dems always argued that their policies were not socialist, but merely a thumb on the scale to keep things a little fairer. We just take a little extra from the rich and give a little here to the poor and most people seem to be fine with that.

But embracing socialism is an admission that the worst fear mongering that the GOP ever did, as it relates to economics, is absolutely correct. Of course, with a generation now having grown up not remembering the disaster that was the old Soviet Union, maybe it will get some play with younger voters. But younger voters haven't made up the bulk of the electorate yet.
piffle,

What we see now is the result of the people seeing the GOP embracing and becoming the caricature that the Democratic party and liberals had about Republicans for ages.

And no, socialism is not being embraced, but policies that moderate the worst aspects of capitalism.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-09-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #86  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:41 PM
Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she's hilarious, not scary. Her 'Green New Deal' is the funniest thing to come out of Washington since Al Franken.
Yeah, these jokers look like they're having a ball!
__________________
"I can't for the life of me understand what's so great about being stupid." ~ George Herbert Walker Bush

Last edited by Brown Eyed Girl; 02-09-2019 at 01:42 PM.
  #87  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:49 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl View Post
Yeah, these jokers look like they're having a ball!
Wow, I stopped counting the many times discredited bastard pun-dits ( ) that use constant lies to prop up the president in that video. And one was of course Bastardi.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-09-2019 at 01:49 PM.
  #88  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes socialism is bad. I didn't even know that was a serious debate in the United States. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to socialism. It is/was agreed that the term was so bad that when Republicans would claim that a Dem policy was socialist, the response would be that it is fear mongering.

Dems always argued that their policies were not socialist, but merely a thumb on the scale to keep things a little fairer. We just take a little extra from the rich and give a little here to the poor and most people seem to be fine with that.

But embracing socialism is an admission that the worst fear mongering that the GOP ever did, as it relates to economics, is absolutely correct. Of course, with a generation now having grown up not remembering the disaster that was the old Soviet Union, maybe it will get some play with younger voters. But younger voters haven't made up the bulk of the electorate yet.
So you oppose our socialized police force, military, firefighting, courts, and much more... or are different folks just using different definitions for "socialism"?
  #89  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:34 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you oppose our socialized police force, military, firefighting, courts, and much more... or are different folks just using different definitions for "socialism"?
These are indisputably governmental functions. I don't know anyone (except for possibly hard core Libertarians) who views government doing government things as socialism.

These are not production of goods or services. Under what basis could we have private court systems, for example? If I am charged with a crime, do I as a "consumer" of court services get to pick my judge?

The argument for capitalism is not an argument for anarchy. I simply fail to see the inconsistency of my point because of the observation that governments are instituted.

Capitalism ensures the most efficient use of goods and services. If I have a bushel of tomatoes and I sell it to the person who bids the highest price, then the tomatoes go to the person who places the highest value on them. Maybe I don't like tomatoes and I would let them rot. This guy obviously loves tomatoes by his decision to use his money and outbid everyone else for them. Therefore the limited supply of tomatoes flow to those who most enjoy them. Nothing is wasted and all products and services flow to those who value them the most.

Now, the counterargument is that we should distribute those tomatoes to those that "need" them instead of those who want them. The main objection to this (and I admit it is very simplistic) is that the very idea of need comes into play, not as a moral issue, but an economic one. As a matter of basic principle, just because you need something doesn't mean that others in a free society should be obligated to provide it to you. Be charitable, yes, but don't create a positive entitlement to the fruits of the labor of others.

The second main objection is that this disincentives production. If I get things I need without any corresponding economic value, then why do I want to work to get those things?

This is basic Econ 101 that I thought those in the United States agreed upon.
  #90  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:34 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 321
I'm glad she mentions FDR - because that's exactly the type of New Deal we need..
  #91  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:38 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes socialism is bad.
You mean, in the US? If so, how do you know?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-09-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #92  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:52 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes socialism is bad. I didn't even know that was a serious debate in the United States. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to socialism. It is/was agreed that the term was so bad that when Republicans would claim that a Dem policy was socialist, the response would be that it is fear mongering.

Dems always argued that their policies were not socialist, but merely a thumb on the scale to keep things a little fairer. We just take a little extra from the rich and give a little here to the poor and most people seem to be fine with that.

But embracing socialism is an admission that the worst fear mongering that the GOP ever did, as it relates to economics, is absolutely correct. Of course, with a generation now having grown up not remembering the disaster that was the old Soviet Union, maybe it will get some play with younger voters. But younger voters haven't made up the bulk of the electorate yet.
The thing you're missing here is that the right went ahead and said, "Universal health care is socialist!" And then they went ahead and said "Welfare is socialism!" And then they said "Attempts at consumer protection in the branch of finance is socialism!" (Fucking really!) And then you could pick basically any democratic policy from the last 30 years - anything that goes against neoliberalistic order of unfettered capitalism and inequality is "socialism" and puts us on a path to bread lines and gulags.

Is it any wonder that so many people have a good opinion of socialism when your party spent so long calling a whole bunch of really excellent policies "socialism" in a shoddy attempt to discredit them? Is it any wonder that people have a poor opinion of capitalism when it's becoming increasingly clear that unfettered capitalism is responsible for the ongoing catastrophe that is global warming? (Tangentially related: "When I asked the IPCC authors in October whether a "market solution" could keep warming within 1.5 degrees C, they literally laughed.")

Hey, if you're worried about socialism, here's a great idea: make it so that your party - traditionally the party most fiercely against socialism - isn't run by conmen and madmen. Make it so that you could reasonably root for the anti-socialist party while also being sane and sensible.
  #93  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:36 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Federal authorities charged with protecting consumers, protecting the environment, and regulating drugs are liable to be co-opted by moneyed interests. The solution is to stop protecting consumers, stop protecting the environment, and to stop regulating drugs. Got it.

Federal authorities charged with regulating financial institutions to prevent panics and frauds and the loss of taxpayer dollars when financial crises strike may be corrupted by the same private companies they are charged with regulating. The solution is to ignore the possibility of frauds, encourage panics and ... and what? Let the dollar dig itself out of the gutter next time? Revert to the gold standard? Got it, I guess?

Your newsletter must be real amusing.

No one is going to enrich themselves if we are all eating dirt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Hippy: "Wind farms and solar farms kill endangered species man!!" ...handed new sign, woman in white outfit whispers in his ear...."We need wind farms and solar farms everywhere man!!"
So, you are saying that she is educating the hippies? Awesome.
  #94  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
These are indisputably governmental functions. I don't know anyone (except for possibly hard core Libertarians) who views government doing government things as socialism.

These are not production of goods or services.
Police (protection of the community) is certainly a service, as is firefighting. As are many other governmental functions, such as inspecting food and drugs, maintaining parks, maintaining roads, and much, much more. We have many socialist functions in the US, by this definition (government involvement in "production of goods or services").

Quote:
Capitalism ensures the most efficient use of goods and services. If I have a bushel of tomatoes and I sell it to the person who bids the highest price, then the tomatoes go to the person who places the highest value on them. Maybe I don't like tomatoes and I would let them rot. This guy obviously loves tomatoes by his decision to use his money and outbid everyone else for them. Therefore the limited supply of tomatoes flow to those who most enjoy them. Nothing is wasted and all products and services flow to those who value them the most.

Now, the counterargument is that we should distribute those tomatoes to those that "need" them instead of those who want them. The main objection to this (and I admit it is very simplistic) is that the very idea of need comes into play, not as a moral issue, but an economic one. As a matter of basic principle, just because you need something doesn't mean that others in a free society should be obligated to provide it to you. Be charitable, yes, but don't create a positive entitlement to the fruits of the labor of others.

The second main objection is that this disincentives production. If I get things I need without any corresponding economic value, then why do I want to work to get those things?

This is basic Econ 101 that I thought those in the United States agreed upon.
You don't have to convince me, or even AOC or Bernie, of the benefits of capitalism. We're all for them (though not necessarily for every single possible service or function for society). The difference between me and you is which functions (and which services) we think capitalism results in a better outcome, and which functions/services we think socialism results in a better outcome. For example, we both probably agree that capitalism results in the highest quality dining, entertainment, and vacation experiences. Capitalism results in the highest quality consumer electronics. Capitalism results in the best performing automobiles (with some government regulation for safety and environment). And much more, quite obviously. But we might disagree on whether capitalism or socialism results in the best results for community health care. Or other functions and services.

These are reasonable discussions, and much more nuanced and adult than "capitalism = good, socialism = bad".

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-09-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #95  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:56 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Capitalism ensures the most efficient use of goods and services. If I have a bushel of tomatoes and I sell it to the person who bids the highest price, then the tomatoes go to the person who places the highest value on them.
Not true. The tomatoes go to the person who has the most money. A starving person with no money will obviously place a higher value on those tomatoes than a rich fat guy. Money /= value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Maybe I don't like tomatoes and I would let them rot. This guy obviously loves tomatoes by his decision to use his money and outbid everyone else for them. Therefore the limited supply of tomatoes flow to those who most enjoy them. Nothing is wasted and all products and services flow to those who value them the most.
Nope; I just showed that this is not true.
  #96  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:00 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Capitalism ensures the most efficient use of goods and services. If I have a bushel of tomatoes and I sell it to the person who bids the highest price, then the tomatoes go to the person who places the highest value on them. Maybe I don't like tomatoes and I would let them rot. This guy obviously loves tomatoes by his decision to use his money and outbid everyone else for them. Therefore the limited supply of tomatoes flow to those who most enjoy them. Nothing is wasted and all products and services flow to those who value them the most.

[...]

This is basic Econ 101 that I thought those in the United States agreed upon.
Have you considered taking Econ 102? Or 103? Or maybe even Econ 201? Because there's all kinds of interesting and weird and very important edge cases where the relationship isn't quite so simple. There's a whole field, economic psychology, predicated on the reality that this just isn't how humans work in the real world.

Seriously, people (most conservatives) keep coming into discussions on government actions and socialism/captialism with this Econ 101 material, and it's like showing up to a physics conference thinking that F=M*A and being shocked and dismayed when people throw out a formula like this. It's tiresome. Why yes, when it comes to who gets the tomato, the market is horribly efficient! When it comes to, say, anything related to medicine, the market is a moral and economic atrocity that needs to die sooner rather than later. Sometimes "basic economics" means "there's more to this and things get fuzzier and more complicated, but this is the simplified model we teach to toddlers to help them understand the very basics".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-09-2019 at 06:01 PM.
  #97  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:28 PM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Hippy: "Wind farms and solar farms kill endangered species man!!" ...handed new sign, woman in white outfit whispers in his ear...."We need wind farms and solar farms everywhere man!!"
What hippies have you been talking to? We complain about nuclear plants & fracking for natural gas. Sometimes we complain about macro-hydroelectric, because it floods poor people out of their homes. Wind & solar can seem kind of area-intensive, but they're very close to non-polluting and can be built on top of our own buildings. (Wind power is kind of noisy, though.)

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-09-2019 at 06:29 PM.
  #98  
Old 02-09-2019, 09:04 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,749
Quote:
Quoth UltraVires:

These are indisputably governmental functions. I don't know anyone (except for possibly hard core Libertarians) who views government doing government things as socialism.
And in the First World, health coverage is also indisputably a governmental function. Which is what Exceptional America calls "socialism".
  #99  
Old 02-09-2019, 09:06 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,791
Quote:
What hippies have you been talking to? We complain....(Wind power is kind of noisy, though.)
Wait. He was being sarcastic? Bummer, man.

Last edited by elucidator; 02-09-2019 at 09:07 PM.
  #100  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:02 PM
Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I don't know what AOC's motivations are, but I'd say that simplifying complex/economic issues in order to get people to think about them, as a way to learning better that complexity, and then what can be done about problems with them, is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
It's why she is both feared and derided. It's sixth grade rhetoric and it actually solves nothing. As a Representative, it's ineffectual. Is there anyone on that committee that isn't aware of the money in politics or ethics rules governing it? She offered no proposal and largely merely gave a line of questioning that you could find in a middle school debate club with all of their rhetorical flourishes. The fear though is that the capite censi essentially exist at the middle school level. We comprehend through simplistic statements that assume our idiocy. We have neither the time nor will to truly understand issues, so we rely on soundbites and memes with essentially zero complexity or nuance as our main guides to the world. Trump understands this and AOC understands it.
Damn. You've said everything I've intended to say, and you've said it much more succinctly. I would only mildly counter that any progress achieved by capturing the emotional convictions of the capite censi would be offset by the gorilla lurking in the shadows that would be experiencing the personal costs necessary to secure such lofty ideals.

IOW, what substantive benefit is there to convincing people to believe in the policies and goals you are envisioning, if that belief comes at the expense of not being informed of the personal real-world impacts enacting such policies would have on THEM? They may be idiots but they deserved to be fully informed. Too bad they're idiots...

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That's what they say about things that they're afraid of. It's called propaganda.

If they weren't concerned about her ideas gaining traction then they'd just ignore her rather than draw attention to her.

They know that she's getting attention so they're belittling her. This is politics 101.
Disagree. Republicans absolutely arent afraid of AOC. She is a gift from the White, Male, Conservative Jesus as far as they are concerned. And the reasons for this are multiple. For one, yes, they recognize the undeniable star-like presence she commands in front of the cameras, as well as her almost rabid popularity amongst the farther-left of The Democratic Party.

Two, they also recognize she is an empty suit, an effective vessel to communicate to a much larger audience, what they (Republicans) believe to be a guaranteed to lose and lose bad platform. Because of this, they are eager to paint AOC not as she is in reality, a freshman Congresswoman whose positions align only partlly with the rest ofnther party, but rather as the National Face and Identity of The Democratic Party.

Her positions represent the positions of all mainstream Dems. According to the Republican spin machine anyway. And that spin machine will broadcast that image of The Dems as far and wide and often as sub-humanly possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This reminds me of the time I spent a few months cheering for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination, assuming he'd be easy to beat and result in a Democratic landslide.

The difference is that AOC is young, actually energetic, compassionate, and capable of learning, with the added bonus of not having spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory or bragging about violating the consent of women and girls.

I don't know if AOC is the future of the party, but I love the idea of young and energetic progressives getting into government. If Republicans are cheering along with me, then please proceed, governor.
And I think that pre-election belief about Trump was not an irrational one to have. 99/100, it would have been the correct belief to base your hopes on as a D.

I basically agree with most of your post. The D's need more AOCs, in a broad sense (gawd, no pun). Youth, fire, passion, empathy, heart, boldness, all absolutely indisputably priceless commodities for the quest for progressive ideals. But AOC's special ability, at this green stage in her career at least, is as a uniqiely effective vessel to deliver the larger vision of her party and/or alliances.

She hasn't said much, to my ears at least, that, if asked, just about everyone wouldnt agree that what she laid out as goals would be beneficial to society as a whole...if they were just somehow magically implemented. AOC ain't doin any heavy lifting. The hard part isn't convincing people that getting "free stuff" is a good thing for them. The hard part is convincing them that it's a good enough thing that it's worth a substantial increase in money they directly pay to the gov't (taxes) in order to fund it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017