The two statements AOC made were talking about different, but related topics.
The first one was -
So I misstated that - it was only $700 billion. She confused the total military budget with an increase. Politifact rates that statement as False, which it obviously is.
The $21 trillion statement is -
The US hasn’t spent $21 trillion on the military since the founding of the Republic. Also rated as False, obviously. Saying “we could have” seems to refer to the past, so it isn’t exactly a projection.
The 2019 US military budget is about $686 billion. I don’t know if there are reliable projections on how much the US military will cost over the next ten years (or twenty), but AOC’s figure for M4A is $32 trillion over ten years. That’s $3.2 trillion per year, and Ms. AOC says this does not include premiums. How you get $3.2 trillion a year from a budget of less than $700 billion is the problem.
It’s not so much mathematics as accounting. And the actual numbers show that Ms. AOC has rather less than half a clue.
And raising spending and trying to offset it by cutting the military budget by three or four times more than we are actually spending is a progressive one.
The faulty assumption here is that the proposition about tax rates is as certain as the proposition that 4+4=8. It isn’t, if it were we would no longer be debating it as we are no longer debating basic addition.
It’s quite reasonable to question the judgment of someone who regularly expresses bigoted or misogynistic things, or who abused women. I’d want a second opinion if the first came from such a doctor. Wouldn’t you?
The Republican fantasy has actually been proposed, voted on, signed, and implemented. Multiple times. It’s a big part of why we have the huge deficits that we do. Republicans seem not to grasp these facts.
The Democratic fantasy is a couple speeches by a junior Representative. I know which of those two things I think is the bigger problem.
Besides which, this thread is about what Republicans could do to win over Democratic voters. If they accepted some difficult facts about our budget, demonstrated real fiscal responsibility and not just lip service, while the Democrats cling to unrealistic budget proposals, that would be a mark in the R’s favor. To me, at least.
Let me know when it happens. I won’t hold my breath.
For a diagnosis as serious as leukemia, I’d want multiple medical opinions no matter what, but not because of the doctor’s character. That’s irrelevant.
If that doesn’t work as an analogy, then consider car components. If a racist bigot mechanic tells me my car engine has been overheating, there is no reason for me to consider that analysis any less credible than if a non-racist, non-bigot mechanic tells me that my car engine has been overheating. It is a technical issue unrelated to personal character.
The viewpoint that “So-and-So has bad character, therefore he must be wrong about things unrelated to character is…”…problematic.
If he says “Hispanics are inherently inferior people because of race and skin color,” then nope, not trustworthy.
If he tells me, “Your habit of smoking two packs a day has now caused you to develop Stage II lung cancer and you now face a 30% chance of death within the next seven years,” I’d take that completely seriously with as much credibility as from any other doctor.
I’m not saying “…he must be wrong” – I’m saying “I’m not interested in seriously considering the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women.”
I won’t derail the thread further, but again, that’s a textbook case of ad hominem. It’s like saying that if Einstein were racist, then his claim that E equals MC square is therefore less credible.
I think this directly addresses the question in the OP – for me, and many liberals/Democrats to consider the GOP, they’d have to stop enabling, supporting, and celebrating bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women in power, as a necessary but not sufficient first step.
And I don’t think the 2nd part actually addresses my point. I have a limited amount of time to listen to the arguments of others. There are plenty of non-bigoted, non-misogynistic, non-abusers in America who make arguments on conservative principles and for conservative policies. I consider those arguments. Why do you believe it’s so important that I also seriously consider the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women?
Uh, if memory serves me, Republicans got Democrats to vote for their last Presidential candidate by having one that directly addressed the concerns, both real and manufactured, of a significant portion of voters that had been taken for granted - - white blue-collar workers and their families. If the economy does not take a turn for the worse and Trump can keep up enough hatred/intolerance/fear of immigrants and work up enough concern over the evils of Socialism, he may just squeeze out another victory. That is, unless his head explodes before then. After this morning’s rants, I’m betting on the explosion.
So you think all Republicans have to do “to win Democratic votes” is to do what they’re already doing. I interpreted the question to include Velocity’s second paragraph.
Do you think a favorable economy is all it will take for those voters to vote for Trump?
They want to see the world in simple terms. So they make certain assumptions. They divide the world up into good and bad. And good things are all good and bad things are all bad. And good and bad are always opposites.
Now apply these simple assumptions:
Donald Trump is a Republican.
Republicans are either all good or all bad.
Democrats are the opposite of Republicans.
Democrats are either all good or all bad.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
Bill Clinton committed adultery.
Adultery is bad.
Bill Clinton is all bad.
The Democrats are all bad.
The Republicans are all good.
Donald Trump is all good.
All they feel they need to do is point out one bad thing that any Democrat has ever done. And by their logic, they have proven that every Republican is good.
The problem is that one of the main concerns that Trump manufactured was disgust with politicians. In 2016, Trump could exploit this by claiming he was a political outsider who was going to “drain the swamp”. Trump is now the President of the United States; he won’t be able to pretend he’s an outsider in 2020.
Well, even amongst the Trump followers, there’s still plenty of disgust with Washington. He will probably campaign on the idea that there are still a few institutions of government he hasn’t torn completely down yet
A favorable economy will go a long way to getting the bastard re-elected. What will seal the deal is a Democratic candidate who does not win back the blue voters that were lost the last time and who are not benefiting from the economy. If they still think Trump can do more for them, they will stay with him.
