What's new
By:
Filters

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

I’ve been thinking about the America v world war. Tbh I think we’d hold out indefinitely. And conquer Canada. Possibly Cuba.

We have vast amounts of agriculturally good terrain, lumber, coal, natural gas, water, satellites, metals...

If we could just prevent upper atmosphere EMPs from going off...

Ya, I know I just went full tin foil.

But I drink a lot now and suddenly have to much lonely time on my hands.
 
Last edited:
So I realize we are 14 pages into this thread but what do you guys all actually think of this Ocasio-Cortez lady? She seems very uninformed on how to do much of the things she speaks about implementing which is always dangerous but maybe there is more to her than what it seems on the surface?
 
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/jzbxb...age-to-american-politics---extended-interview

Ocasio Cortez was on Trevor Noah's show. Here's a clip of her answering how she'd pay for her plan. From what I've read online, 2 trillion dollars wouldn't pay for it for one year let alone spread out over 10 years. I'm sure there are some of you who are way more informed on this than me, thoughts?

She also said she never received money from corporations for her 800k she raised for her campaign. “Many folks got elected with some corporate money and then they swore it off after. But I think I’m one of the first to get elected right out of the gate without any corporate PAC money, which gives me a very large degree of independence.”
However, she received thousands of dollars from corporations like JP Morgan and Chase and Elevated Partners. I hate how politicians lie so much (if this is true - I doubt almost every news I read to some degree.) I mean, it's the nature of the beast in a dog eat dog world, I guess.

I like her passion and it's refreshing seeing someone fresh, young, a woman, etc make it to where she is today, so props for her. I do see a lot of people on both the right and left question her though.
 
DasJazz said:
So I realize we are 14 pages into this thread but what do you guys all actually think of this Ocasio-Cortez lady? She seems very uninformed on how to do much of the things she speaks about implementing which is always dangerous but maybe there is more to her than what it seems on the surface?
Click to expand...

There are some serious unintended consequences to a federal jobs guarantee, many that harm the most vulnerable long term or weaken necessary institutions like education.

She's quite the uninformed, pandering blowhard on that alone. Makes Trump sound intelligent.
 
Siro said:
Well, I am in support of Trump's anti-NATO agenda. It's the only thing about him that I like. Let the Europeans take care of themselves. As for "this is just how humanity is" comment; the US is the only developed country that is continuously engaged in war. Arm and train the mujahideen in Afghanistan, then engage them in a decades long war. Destabilize Iraq in the name of democracy, then spend a couple of decades fighting the Islamists that filled the void. Over and over. It's absurd.

There are no serious military threats to the US. There's no amount of money that would make war with Russia anything less than a mass extinction event, and thus out of the question. There is no justification for spending a trillion dollar on a fighter jet that doesn't work. It is ****ing absurd.
Click to expand...

Uhhh there is to justification. It is really ****in cool. Like the love child of a Ferrari and a T-Rex that grew up to be a Jazz musician kind of cool. Srs I've seen that thing in person and it has no business flying. Sci-Fi to the max. So ****in cool
 
♪alt13 said:
Uhhh there is to justification. It is really ****in cool. Like the love child of a Ferrari and a T-Rex that grew up to be a Jazz musician kind of cool. Srs I've seen that thing in person and it has no business flying. Sci-Fi to the max. So ****in cool
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I really like military tech, weapon systems especially. I want moar, but I also realize we don't need more. Besides, a focus on effectiveness at defending ourselves would generate better, much more cost effective solutions than the **** we have now. Like I said, we're set up to kick the whole planets *** all at once. No military has come anywhere near as close to being able to actually do that as we have, but we were more capable of doing that 15 years ago than we are today, and we'll be further from that goal 5 years from now and we'll never get as close again. Those are the facts. China and Russia are in a silent arms race with us. India, Brazil, Iran, and many smaller players are rooting for China and Russia, they are looking for a way they can counter us as well.

We've been arrogant. We might one day pay a price for that. We've been the bad winners of the cold war. Trump is the disgusting cherry on top.
 
One Brow said:
"As for whether a woman suffers more from prejudice than a black person, that's at least partly situation-dependent, like any type of privilege."
Click to expand...

Here's my problem with a statement like this one-- you can spin it in another direction (as right wing people often do) in order to obscure the impact of privilege.

Of course, there are swaths of micro (as opposed to macro) situations where socially-constructed stereotypes and folkways will slant 'positive' bias towards a group that might even be more marginalized (choosing who to hire based on perceived 'laziness', choosing athletes for your sports team, etc.). The macro is an attempt to integrate all of the situations of positve vs. negative biases, to attempt and provide a commentary on the lived life of that marginalized community in the United States. On the macro level, the life of a black man is at a larger disadvantage than one of a white woman -- this is my opinion.

On this macro level (but also applicable in the micro level), I said that "Barack Hussein Obama was more underprivileged than Hillary Clinton" for a political race, and that there's macro-level academic evidence behind it (in fact, there's probably political race evidence behind this too). I've posted some, you've attempted to discredit it. You tried posting one example of a sector favouring black men over women, I then pointed out how that was actually incorrect when you dig deeper. I have nothing more to say on the matter, i'm retiring from this conversation on this thread (let's go back to talking about AOC). Let the people decide what their stance is on this issue.
 
dalamon said:
Here's my problem with a statement like this one-- you can spin it in another direction (as right wing people often do) in order to obscure the impact of privilege.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is a concern. However, I doubt the long-term utility of bringing in gross generalizations to avoid the spin. These generalizations are subject to other sorts of spin, and are more easily disputed by counter-examples.

dalamon said:
The macro is an attempt to integrate all of the situations of positve vs. negative biases, to attempt and provide a commentary on the lived life of that marginalized community in the United States. On the macro level, the life of a black man is at a larger disadvantage than one of a white woman -- this is my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have no objection to you holding this opinion, it could well be true. Last I heard though, your opinion is not "a point that's as commonly understood and accepted as human-fueled climate change." In particular, I'm not sure how you disentangle the effects of wealth and the privileges of wealth from white women (who have greater ties to the wealthy) vs. black men. I didn't see you make any effort there.

Further, I'm not sure how useful such a claim is. What matters is not who faces more oppression, but the oppression that any individual faces.

dalamon said:
On this macro level (but also applicable in the micro level), I said that "Barack Hussein Obama was more underprivileged than Hillary Clinton" for a political race, and that there's macro-level academic evidence behind it (in fact, there's probably political race evidence behind this too).
Click to expand...

I don't recall any of your links being "for a political race" generally, much less a national political race in particular.

dalamon said:
I've posted some, you've attempted to discredit it. You tried posting one example of a sector favouring black men over women, I then pointed out how that was actually incorrect when you dig deeper.
Click to expand...

Finding one unfavorable facet of an overall favorable situation does not mean the overall situation is now unfavorable. If you really wanted to "dig deeper", that would have required looking not just at job losses, but at re-hires, promotions, raises, etc., compared to qualifications, seniority, etc.

dalamon said:
I have nothing more to say on the matter, i'm retiring from this conversation on this thread (let's go back to talking about AOC). Let the people decide what their stance is on this issue.
Click to expand...

People will decide, regardless. :)
 
dalamon said:
Here's my problem with a statement like this one-- you can spin it in another direction (as right wing people often do) in order to obscure the impact of privilege.

Of course, there are swaths of micro (as opposed to macro) situations where socially-constructed stereotypes and folkways will slant 'positive' bias towards a group that might even be more marginalized (choosing who to hire based on perceived 'laziness', choosing athletes for your sports team, etc.). The macro is an attempt to integrate all of the situations of positve vs. negative biases, to attempt and provide a commentary on the lived life of that marginalized community in the United States. On the macro level, the life of a black man is at a larger disadvantage than one of a white woman -- this is my opinion.

On this macro level (but also applicable in the micro level), I said that "Barack Hussein Obama was more underprivileged than Hillary Clinton" for a political race, and that there's macro-level academic evidence behind it (in fact, there's probably political race evidence behind this too). I've posted some, you've attempted to discredit it. You tried posting one example of a sector favouring black men over women, I then pointed out how that was actually incorrect when you dig deeper. I have nothing more to say on the matter, i'm retiring from this conversation on this thread (let's go back to talking about AOC). Let the people decide what their stance is on this issue.
Click to expand...
I'm just a heartless right-winger so I'm sure my opinion won't matter too much to either of you, but the way I see it the world is that it's not fair and never will be. Not even close! Despite that, there are many examples of people from the most difficult of origins who find a way to the top, and of people from the most privileged origins who find their way to the bottom. Even more than that, I know many stories of people who have a lot of money and no happiness, and even more of people who have very little money but a lot of happiness. Can we measure the average happiness of these different groups you are defining? If we found disparities do you think we should impose government programs to equalize them?
 
Siro said:
That's one of the Israel lobby's biggest accomplishments in the US. Equating criticism of a government's behavior with racism. Just genius.
Click to expand...
This is not just a "Israeli government" tactic. It happens here all the time too. Criticism of platform or agenda or topic = racism.
The only thing that makes the tactic good vs bad seems to be what you are behind in many cases.
How you push your message should be just as important as your message.

tldr - It's not just Israel's government doing this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top