Ocasio Lenin makes her debut

[code1211]

Wrong!

Ocasio has tapped into the intense discrimination, a lack of affordable housing, limited access to health care, unequal schooling and an increasingly stratified job market that Latins have faced. To make matters worse, Latinx New Yorkers became victims of a political culture that held little place for them in decisions affecting urban development, even as they increasingly constituted a major part of New York’s population.

Is this what you are against?

She is a symbol against the bias that White Americans have against anyone not white. There is nothing that is Lenin-like in her, contrary to Trump that is Lenin-like in almost everything he does.

by the way, prove your statement that Ocasio is for Ocasio as the reality is that she is not getting anything for herself out of this. She is working for the benefit of all oppressed by the White bias that exists among Trump and his supporters.

It's always difficult to pick out the least outlandish claims in your posts, but here goes:

Unequal schooling is the product of unequal funding, at least in part, and can be remedied by school vouchers. This is opposed by the teacher's unions. This is supported by people who want better education for those living in less privileged areas.

Private schools which would be funded by Vouchers produce better educational outcomes at lower cost than Public schools.

Latinos' household incomes are rising in the American economy like rockets in the sky. Looks like gains of about 4% annually since 2014 for Latinos.

Asians just keep on surpassing all others. Household income among Asian Americans is dropping, but is still Number one among the demographic groups.

It's pretty obvious that being brown in the US is NOT a bad thing for economic advancement.

It's only bad to be brown in the eyes and minds of the Liberals.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203301/median-income-of-hispanic-households-in-the-us/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203297/median-income-of-asian-households-in-the-us/

 

[ElChupacabra]

:lamo:lamo:lamo

It is just so funny how this young lady scares me he living **** out of the right wing coo coos...

So we have Godwin's Law for Hitler references, surely there must be one for Red Scare references.....

 

[Luckyone]

Obama and Bill Clinton, among other misguided politicians, "tapped into" the large groups of poor people votes by moving Congress to remove traditional credit stipulations for banks making home loans, and we got the Wall Street collapse of 2008.

HAHAHAHAHA! What a ridiculous statement. Bush was the one that brought about the Wall Street collapse of 2008 by allowing financial institutions to run rampant with greed and having no regulations to prevent them from doing the wrong thing. Obama was the one that brought out of a financial collapse that had it happened, you and I would likely be at the food line begging for food right now.

I tell you, this post is likely to be the most uninformed post of yours that I have ever read. It suggests to me that reading any more of your posts would be an exercise of stupidity on my part.

 

[beefheart]

Obamacare: Voters, are you stupid? CNN,Nov 18, 2014 Obamacare: Voters, are you stupid? - CNN.com

Meaningless deflection.

You have marginalized yourself via your inane trolling posts. You get no further response from me here.

 

[jimbo]

Indeed. And this is the media's appointed 'future of the Democratic party'. :lamo
Good luck with that.

Also a good laugh Rep. Steve Cohen from Tennessee Democrat, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee.


Anyone who knows anything about the US government and the US constitution should known that a Constitutional amendment is required or this.
So much stupid, so concentrated in one place. It could be dangerous.

Good luck with that too.

I think Cohen actually proposed amendments. It was others who suggested a new law.

Cohen's math, though, is incredibly bad. The EC attempts to address the one man, one vote issue. That it fails in some cases is the issue.

The amendment process, is different. One state, one vote. 2/3 votes required to amend. Idaho, 1 vote. California, one vote. There are approximately 45 Idahos. 5 Californias.

The proposal will go down something like 45/5 against.

 

[dobieg]

:lamo:lamo:lamo

It is just so funny how this young lady scares me he living **** out of the right wing coo coos...

Almost as funny as how this Hugo Chavez disciple gets the Left all swooning because of her everyone farts unicorns liberal Utopian fantasies.

 

[eohrnberger]

I think Cohen actually proposed amendments. It was others who suggested a new law.

On second reading, you may be right.

[h=3]Bills propose eliminating Electoral College, preventing presidents from ...[/h]https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/...steve-cohen-electoral-pardon/index.html
15 hours ago - Washington (CNN) Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed two constitutional amendments, one that would abolish the Electoral College and another ...

Seems a bit unclear from the standpoint that the headline says 'Bill', where the tag line states 'constitutional amendment'. Isn't that an either-or, and not a 'both'?

Cohen's math, though, is incredibly bad. The EC attempts to address the one man, one vote issue. That it fails in some cases is the issue.

The amendment process, is different. One state, one vote. 2/3 votes required to amend. Idaho, 1 vote. California, one vote. There are approximately 45 Idahos. 5 Californias.

The proposal will go down something like 45/5 against.

Quite right, and rightly so. It's a terrible idea that would tear the nation, it's electorate, apart even worse than it already is.

 

[dobieg]

OMG she danced!! Quick- grab the pearls!!
GOP seems to be ok with porn stars and nude pictures but OMG she was dancing and having fun!! Where are the smelling salts???

Who are all these supposed conservatives that are worked up because she was dancing?


Seems like something the Left made up in another shallow attempt to demonize the Right.



I'd actually like to see her dancing a bit more. Nude of course and lots of bouncing(she seems good at that). She could use the videos to set up a GoFundMe to save the whales or spotted owl.

 

[eohrnberger]

HAHAHAHAHA! What a ridiculous statement. Bush was the one that brought about the Wall Street collapse of 2008 by allowing financial institutions to run rampant with greed and having no regulations to prevent them from doing the wrong thing.

Sorry, but that's factually inaccurate. It has been dissected at great length and detail: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Obama was the one that brought out of a financial collapse that had it happened, you and I would likely be at the food line begging for food right now.

Meh. Rather unlikely.
More likely is that the Bush TARP program aided the recovery, and even more likely that Obama's regulatory rampage slowed down the recovery.

I tell you, this post is likely to be the most uninformed post of yours that I have ever read. It suggests to me that reading any more of your posts would be an exercise of stupidity on my part.

Those in glass houses . . . .

 

[Luckyone]

Sorry, but that's factually inaccurate.

It is difficult for you to make a point on this because I was heavily involved in the financial crisis given that I am and have been a stock market analyst for 42 years and working for such reputable firms such as Merrill Lynch, Prudential-Bache and Dean Witter.

The financial crisis was all about deregulation of financial institutions and the greed that caused. Given that the Democrats are all about regulations and the Republicans are totally against them, it is impossible to put any blame on Democrats for the crisis. The deregulation occurred in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 was repealed. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was introduced to Congress by Republicans (Gramm, Leach and Bliley all republicans) and it was to get rid of the regulations that were in place since 1933. The bill did get bi-partisan support and was signed by Clinton but it was a Republican bill. That is known history

 

[eohrnberger]

It is difficult for you to make a point on this because I was heavily involved in the financial crisis given that I am and have been a stock market analyst for 42 years and working for such reputable firms such as Merrill Lynch, Prudential-Bache and Dean Witter.

The financial crisis was all about deregulation of financial institutions and the greed that caused. Given that the Democrats are all about regulations and the Republicans are totally against them, it is impossible to put any blame on Democrats for the crisis. The deregulation occurred in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 was repealed. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was introduced to Congress by Republicans (Gramm, Leach and Bliley all republicans) and it was to get rid of the regulations that were in place since 1933. The bill did get bi-partisan support and was signed by Clinton but it was a Republican bill. That is known history

Exactly the point being that it's not all Bush's, yes, he did contribute, but he surely wasn't the only one, and the bubble that burst was building a fair number of years before that. In addition, that wasn't the only decision or action causing the bubble.

Consult the thread, I wager that there's not a single detail that missed consideration and discussion.

 

[Luckyone]

Exactly the point being that it's not all Bush's, yes, he did contribute, but he surely wasn't the only one, and the bubble that burst was building a fair number of years before that. In addition, that wasn't the only decision or action causing the bubble.

Consult the thread, I wager that there's not a single detail that missed consideration and discussion.

Nonetheless, the thread was about Clinton and Obama being at fault for the crisis and that is just not true. It was all about Greed and deregulation and those are all Republican traits.

 

[eohrnberger]

Nonetheless, the thread was about Clinton and Obama being at fault for the crisis and that is just not true. It was all about Greed and deregulation and those are all Republican traits.

"Greed and deregulation and those are all Republican traits"
Awfully broad brush to paint with there. I'd be more inclined to be of the position that greed is more a human trait.

To me, deregulation is not so much a question of to do so or not, we should, but we shouldn't do so just for the sake of doing so, it needs to be done with due consideration and a goal, other than enabling something like the financial bubble.

Clinton did have something to do with the financial bubble, yes, but he's not the only one.

Don't think Obama had anything to do with the financial bubble, it was already well on its way, more of a question as to when rather than if, when he was elected Senator.

Regardless, all of these things are discussed in the thread I liked to earlier, and no need to further derail this thread, I'm thinking.

 

[Luckyone]

"Greed and deregulation and those are all Republican traits"
Awfully broad brush to paint with there. I'd be more inclined to be of the position that greed is more a human trait.

To me, deregulation is not so much a question of to do so or not, we should, but we shouldn't do so just for the sake of doing so, it needs to be done with due consideration and a goal, other than enabling something like the financial bubble.

Clinton did have something to do with the financial bubble, yes, but he's not the only one.

Don't think Obama had anything to do with the financial bubble, it was already well on its way, more of a question as to when rather than if, when he was elected Senator.

Regardless, all of these things are discussed in the thread I liked to earlier, and no need to further derail this thread, I'm thinking.

I agree. It is difficult to leave a false statement unanswered as misinformation tends to grow from person to person. Bottom line is that the crisis occurred because of greed and deregulation and Clinton was not to blame for those.

Now back to Ocasio and her being compared to Lenin. What a joke!

 

[Neomalthusian]

Ocasio has a new green energy plan which involves slapping the 'rich' with very heavy taxes to support democrat researchers claiming they can change the weather if given enough tax monies confiscated from that endangered class known as working American job creators.

This is equivalent to Ron Paul proposing to abolish the Federal Reserve and the income tax. He was a populist. His policy ideas were never moderate or pragmatic.

Similarly, progressive populists are presenting outlandish policy proposals on hot button issues as a gambit to propose extreme tax increases. Bernie is using single payer to do it. Now Cortez is using "green energy" to do it.

There's a reason you don't see the likes of Clinton, Biden, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and others firmly in the Democratic Party establishment proposing buffoonery like this. It doesn't politically benefit the party elite to present theatrically unrealistic policy ideas.

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree. It is difficult to leave a false statement unanswered as misinformation tends to grow from person to person. Bottom line is that the crisis occurred because of greed and deregulation and Clinton was not to blame for those.

Now back to Ocasio and her being compared to Lenin. What a joke!

Fair enough for me.

She might be a communist, but she's no Lenin. All you have to do is look at her to know that.

 

[Luckyone]

Fair enough for me.

She might be a communist, but she's no Lenin. All you have to do is look at her to know that.

You know, I hate people that have a socialist mind being called communists. Communism and Socialism are two different beasts and Communism is the one with the truly negative description. She is not a Communist in spite of her Socialist leanings. To me, Socialism is not bad though it is difficult to manage correctly. Caring about "the whole family" rather than simply looking out for the "bread winner" is not a bad idea. A family working together can accomplish a lot more than one talented person working alone can. Yes, there are some negatives to Socialism, but mostly it is about caring, whereas Capitalism as we have in the U.S. is all about one person climbing over others to reach the peak and leaving the rest behind. More people get benefits when working as a family than one person alone can get working for himself.

 

[Acadia]

I agree. It is difficult to leave a false statement unanswered as misinformation tends to grow from person to person. Bottom line is that the crisis occurred because of greed and deregulation and Clinton was not to blame for those.

Now back to Ocasio and her being compared to Lenin. What a joke!

How about comparing her to Abraham Lincoln. It's like she wants her face on a mountain or something.

 

[Luckyone]

How about comparing her to Abraham Lincoln. It's like she wants her face on a mountain or something.

I disagree. I don't think that what she is doing has anything to do with personal aggrandizement. I believe she believes strongly in what she is doing and has a tremendous energy of her youth and her beliefs behind her. I happen to think highly of her, even though I do not agree with everything she says.

 

[eohrnberger]

You know, I hate people that have a socialist mind being called communists. Communism and Socialism are two different beasts and Communism is the one with the truly negative description. She is not a Communist in spite of her Socialist leanings. To me, Socialism is not bad though it is difficult to manage correctly. Caring about "the whole family" rather than simply looking out for the "bread winner" is not a bad idea. A family working together can accomplish a lot more than one talented person working alone can. Yes, there are some negatives to Socialism, but mostly it is about caring, whereas Capitalism as we have in the U.S. is all about one person climbing over others to reach the peak and leaving the rest behind. More people get benefits when working as a family than one person alone can get working for himself.

Meh. At some point when the federal regulation reaches a critical mass, may have even been achieved during the Obama administration, way as well have turned over control to the means of production to the federal government, and, yes, that could be Communism, i.e. government control of the means of production.

Even Socialism and Democratic Socialism still sounds like confiscation of someone's hard earned pay to be spent on frivolous programs, as the US federal government so amply demonstrates each and every budget. It'd be fair to call these congressional budget bills congressional slush funds.

The libertarian in me comes out and says 'the government that governs least governs best'. Socialism as well as Democratic Socialism is exactly the polar opposite, hence I'm not in support of them. And, no, this doesn't mean government abandoning its role to legislate and regulate, just need to be smarter, cheaper and more efficient about it.

Right now the US Federal government is $21T in debt (the debt doubled to this level under Obama's watch BTW), and this is going to go up, as the US federal government budget is still in deficit. Next year, the interest payments on that debt are going to be equal to the budget for the military, or at least as has been reported, with little reason to doubt the veracity of this.

This is going to become the next large problem that the dysfunctional congress and bloated bureaucratic federal government is going to have to deal with.
Growing the economy faster than we are even now growing is the means to soften this soon to land blow, as is federal government spending cuts, that neither party can seem to manage to achieve.

Implementing hugely expensive socialistic programs isn't the direction to deal with this debt problem, and neither are commensurate large taxation increases, which will slow down economic growth and make the soon to be landing blow even more devastating.

This is my opinion, subject to change without notice with the advent and analysis of additional facts.

 

[Acadia]

I disagree. I don't think that what she is doing has anything to do with personal aggrandizement. I believe she believes strongly in what she is doing and has a tremendous energy of her youth and her beliefs behind her. I happen to think highly of her, even though I do not agree with everything she says.

I agree she's got youthful energy, but the danger is that she's woefully ignorant regarding our Constitution, world history and economics, at a minimum. Combine that with a profound lack of self awareness for her age, and you have the classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Luckyone]

Meh. At some point when the federal regulation reaches a critical mass, may have even been achieved during the Obama administration, way as well have turned over control to the means of production to the federal government, and, yes, that could be Communism, i.e. government control of the means of production.

Even Socialism and Democratic Socialism still sounds like confiscation of someone's hard earned pay to be spent on frivolous programs, as the US federal government so amply demonstrates each and every budget. It'd be fair to call these congressional budget bills congressional slush funds.

The libertarian in me comes out and says 'the government that governs least governs best'. Socialism as well as Democratic Socialism is exactly the polar opposite, hence I'm not in support of them. And, no, this doesn't mean government abandoning its role to legislate and regulate, just need to be smarter, cheaper and more efficient about it.

Right now the US Federal government is $21T in debt (the debt doubled to this level under Obama's watch BTW), and this is going to go up, as the US federal government budget is still in deficit. Next year, the interest payments on that debt are going to be equal to the budget for the military, or at least as has been reported, with little reason to doubt the veracity of this.

This is going to become the next large problem that the dysfunctional congress and bloated bureaucratic federal government is going to have to deal with.
Growing the economy faster than we are even now growing is the means to soften this soon to land blow, as is federal government spending cuts, that neither party can seem to manage to achieve.

Implementing hugely expensive socialistic programs isn't the direction to deal with this debt problem, and neither are commensurate large taxation increases, which will slow down economic growth and make the soon to be landing blow even more devastating.

This is my opinion, subject to change without notice with the advent and analysis of additional facts.

Though I do not disagree with you, I do take a different tact to the problem.

First of all, humanity in general is flawed, meaning that there is no type of government that humanity can run that won't have problems. It isn't the type of government that doesn't work, it is the people running that type of government that don't work well.

This suggests, as all marriages do, that we need to take in the bad with the good and then measure whether there is more good than bad or vice versa and make changes accordingly. If there are more benefits than negatives, you keep the system and work to lower the negatives as much as you can, knowing full well that they cannot all be gotten rid of.

One can always find the bad in a person if they look, and the opposite is true.

This means that we all need to "settle" for less than what we want or aim for.

In my personal opinion, we are a family and we all need to work together for the benefit of the family, even if that impinges on one member more than the other. Government will always be needed because none of us can do it all, meaning we need to rely on others for many of our daily needs.

Yes, I agree that less government is better than more government but replacing one with another is not necessarily the right way to go. The United States has been successful with this type of Government over the past 240 years and it was worked better rather than worse for all of us. As such, replacing it is not intelligent. Adjusting it and adjusting to it makes more sense.

 

[Acadia]

Meh. At some point when the federal regulation reaches a critical mass, may have even been achieved during the Obama administration, way as well have turned over control to the means of production to the federal government, and, yes, that could be Communism, i.e. government control of the means of production.

Even Socialism and Democratic Socialism still sounds like confiscation of someone's hard earned pay to be spent on frivolous programs, as the US federal government so amply demonstrates each and every budget. It'd be fair to call these congressional budget bills congressional slush funds.

The libertarian in me comes out and says 'the government that governs least governs best'. Socialism as well as Democratic Socialism is exactly the polar opposite, hence I'm not in support of them. And, no, this doesn't mean government abandoning its role to legislate and regulate, just need to be smarter, cheaper and more efficient about it.

Right now the US Federal government is $21T in debt (the debt doubled to this level under Obama's watch BTW), and this is going to go up, as the US federal government budget is still in deficit. Next year, the interest payments on that debt are going to be equal to the budget for the military, or at least as has been reported, with little reason to doubt the veracity of this.

This is going to become the next large problem that the dysfunctional congress and bloated bureaucratic federal government is going to have to deal with.
Growing the economy faster than we are even now growing is the means to soften this soon to land blow, as is federal government spending cuts, that neither party can seem to manage to achieve.

Implementing hugely expensive socialistic programs isn't the direction to deal with this debt problem, and neither are commensurate large taxation increases, which will slow down economic growth and make the soon to be landing blow even more devastating.

This is my opinion, subject to change without notice with the advent and analysis of additional facts.

It's my understanding that when you cut corporate taxes, government income actually increases.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's my understanding that when you cut corporate taxes, government income actually increases.

It really depends on who you listen to and who you believe and which numbers they are using.

Because "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

But, yes, there are some economic analysis which show an increase in government tax revenues when tax rates are lowered.
And to be fair, there are some economic analysis which show an decrease in government tax revenues when tax rates are lowered.

I'm not sure if there's a clear and definitive answer, as economics and economic studies always seem to have a fair amount of guess work in them.

 

[eohrnberger]

Though I do not disagree with you, I do take a different tact to the problem.

First of all, humanity in general is flawed, meaning that there is no type of government that humanity can run that won't have problems. It isn't the type of government that doesn't work, it is the people running that type of government that don't work well.

Fair.

This suggests, as all marriages do, that we need to take in the bad with the good and then measure whether there is more good than bad or vice versa and make changes accordingly. If there are more benefits than negatives, you keep the system and work to lower the negatives as much as you can, knowing full well that they cannot all be gotten rid of.

Fair.

One can always find the bad in a person if they look, and the opposite is true.

This means that we all need to "settle" for less than what we want or aim for.

OK. Seems that there already have been at least 2 generations that have accepted 'less'.

In my personal opinion, we are a family and we all need to work together for the benefit of the family, even if that impinges on one member more than the other. Government will always be needed because none of us can do it all, meaning we need to rely on others for many of our daily needs.

Err. A family is far more cohesive, far more willing to give up for another, than a society. I don't think that its reasonable to demand family levels of commitment to complete strangers. After all, you've known your family members all of your (or their) lives. Right? You can't possibly say that of complete strangers in the society.

Yes, I agree that less government is better than more government but replacing one with another is not necessarily the right way to go. The United States has been successful with this type of Government over the past 240 years and it was worked better rather than worse for all of us. As such, replacing it is not intelligent. Adjusting it and adjusting to it makes more sense.

Umm, I'm not the one that's looking to replace the US federal government with a Socialist Democracy. But there are other people, some of which were just elected to the Congressional House, that certainly seem to have adopted this position.