What's new
By:
Filters

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

The Thriller said:
Boring? Efficiency? What about gabbard is imaginative, creative, or the opposite of boring? What about gabbard’s record shows that she’ll improve the efficiency of Washington? What does that even mean?

How would you quantify “efficiency” in DC?
Click to expand...

Efficiency, in my opinion, can be quantified by the amount of actions promised by the candidate from which the people who elected him/her based their vote vs. what he/she was actually able to accomplish in Washington.

Gabbard served in Iraq and probably knows a bit more about the consequences of war than other candidates. How is it boring to have the most anti-unnecessary war approach? Lead by example, not by force. Then we wonder why the US government is growing more unpopular in other countries by the day.
 
Jazzta said:
Efficiency, in my opinion, can be quantified by the amount of actions promised by the candidate from which the people who elected him/her based their vote vs. what he/she was actually able to accomplish in Washington.

Gabbard served in Iraq and probably knows a bit more about the consequences of war than other candidates. How is it boring to have the most anti-unnecessary war approach? Lead by example, not by force. Then we wonder why the US government is growing more unpopular in other countries by the day.
Click to expand...

1. Ok so, I didn’t quite get what efficiency meant to you. So what I understand is it’s the president’s ability to fulfill campaign promises. What makes you think Gabbard will be able to fulfill campaign promises more than other candidates? She comes from a small state, isn’t particularly popular or recognizable, and doesn’t seem to have an agenda popular with either political party.

2. It’s not boring to have an isolationist approach. I was asking for clarification on what you meant by “Boring.” But now that you brought it up, is all you’re looking for is an isolationist candidate? What about their stances on civil rights, wealth inequality, and health care? These seem to be pretty damn important issues to voters, not isolationism. I’m not even sure where your foreign policy priorities even fall under Pews survey of political priorities. So what else makes Gabbard attractive as a candidate?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...sues/pp_2019-01-24_political-priorities_0-02/
 
The Thriller said:
1. Ok so, I didn’t quite get what efficiency meant to you. So what I understand is it’s the president’s ability to fulfill campaign promises. What makes you think Gabbard will be able to fulfill campaign promises more than other candidates? She comes from a small state, isn’t particularly popular or recognizable, and doesn’t seem to have an agenda popular with either political party.

2. It’s not boring to have an isolationist approach. I was asking for clarification on what you meant by “Boring.” But now that you brought it up, is all you’re looking for is an isolationist candidate? What about their stances on civil rights, wealth inequality, and health care? These seem to be pretty damn important issues to voters, not isolationism. I’m not even sure where your foreign policy priorities even fall under Pews survey of political priorities. So what else makes Gabbard attractive as a candidate?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...sues/pp_2019-01-24_political-priorities_0-02/
Click to expand...

My trust in candidates to fulfill their promises is very low across the board tbh. All the talk for years and years about making health care more affordable for everyone and the insurance companies are still allowed to do as they please. I consider this a very important issue, close to foreign policy. You talk about popular, this isn’t a popularity contest, we’re looking for someone who can be the POTUS. Not necessarily someone who has good debating skills.

Also, the word isolationist is not fair. You can advocate for solving foreign issues on the table, not on a battlefield, without isolating yourself from the world.
 
Jazzta said:
My trust in candidates to fulfill their promises is very low across the board tbh. All the talk for years and years about making health care more affordable for everyone and the insurance companies are still allowed to do as they please. I consider this a very important issue, close to foreign policy. You talk about popular, this isn’t a popularity contest, we’re looking for someone who can be the POTUS. Not necessarily someone who has good debating skills.

Also, the word isolationist is not fair. You can advocate for solving foreign issues on the table, not on a battlefield, without isolating yourself from the world.
Click to expand...

1. Fair enough. But at some point her ideas and candidacy needs to become more popular, right? She can’t win Without winning enough delegates to win the party’s nomination and without winning enough electors will win the general election. Her other positions and plans on major issues I really haven’t heard/read enough about. It seems like her main thing is foreign policy.

2. Isolationist might have been a bit too harsh. I can see where some of her points about leaving certain areas of the world to their own fate (Afghanistan) would resonate. So you have a good point there.

I know she at least sparked a lot of interest after the debates so she did herself well this past week.
 
Archie Moses said:
https://www.yahoo.com/money/aoc-daylight-savings-hour-152817485.html

The comments are worthy of a read.
Click to expand...
LOL I liked this one.
"If we change our times with the sole intent of increasing the amount of daylight we receive, that's an extra hour of sun shine that will warm the planet. That's one extra hour per day of extra heat warming our already unstable planet. We need to repeal Daylight Savings Time as a primary measure to decrease the rate of climate change. Less hours of sun shine equal less heat hitting Earth's surface. We are running out of time!"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top