Would You Ever Vote AOC For President? (1 Viewer)

[noonereal]

I have never intimated it worked out well for me.

The Electoral College chose the president, they could have chosen Hillary, but they went with dumb, and chose Trump. Oh, for the record, the members of the Electoral College are not US Constitutionally bound to choosing a president based on any state rules.

They could defy norms in their choosing.

and if they all acted like Trump, they all would.

 

[haymarket]

Income redistribution versus keeping what you earned to keep the economy moving...wow.

Since we have had what astonishes you for a century now, you surprise rather easily don't you?

 

[Xelor]

What the question shows is ideology. Those who reject her today do so on purely ideological grounds, which is the knee jerk nature of the right. "If it smells like liberalism it much be socialism, lets kill it'

Red:
Okay. You're probably right about that, and that's not a consideration I had because I think in terms of philosophy/principle rather than ideology. (See also: Philosophy vs. Ideology)

 

[Fearandloathing]

Red:
Okay. You're probably right about that, and that's not a consideration I had because I think in terms of philosophy/principle rather than ideology. (See also: Philosophy vs. Ideology)

As a lifetime journalist I am well aware of the differences, and suggest the philosopher is ill suited for the rigors of ideology, where suspension of belief is a necessary tool.

In politics the ideological is not an idealist, but the opposite, fear driven, averse to change, while the progressive believes he is an idealist but ends up becoming ideological when frustrated about no change.

The first real philosopher politician I met was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, former Canadian prime minister and father of today's Justin Trudeau. In his frist term he generated some 5 million pages of "White Papers", parliamentary presentations on ideas, ideals and progressive goals, including then the legalization of marijuana and free university.

Somewhere in the middle there lies a balance, but damned if I know what that is. 30 years covering governments from rural town halls to Parliament. I do know, the adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" I have seen a lot of men and women startlingly changed in their philosophy after even a few months in office.

 

[Xelor]

As a lifetime journalist I am well aware of the differences, and suggest the philosopher is ill suited for the rigors of ideology, where suspension of belief is a necessary tool.

In politics the ideological is not an idealist, but the opposite, fear driven, averse to change, while the progressive believes he is an idealist but ends up becoming ideological when frustrated about no change.

The first real philosopher politician I met was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, former Canadian prime minister and father of today's Justin Trudeau. In his frist term he generated some 5 million pages of "White Papers", parliamentary presentations on ideas, ideals and progressive goals, including then the legalization of marijuana and free university.

Somewhere in the middle there lies a balance, but damned if I know what that is. 30 years covering governments from rural town halls to Parliament. I do know, the adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" I have seen a lot of men and women startlingly changed in their philosophy after even a few months in office.

Red:
Well, nobody ever accused me of being good at channeling Taylor Coleridge. LOL


Blue:
Well, to those amenable to it, or at least imbued with a healthy does of intellectual curiosity, quite a lot of learning can happen in just a few months.

 

[lwf]

Please name your top Trumpnis crazy because issue.....lets compare.

Isn't that a little bit like you bringing a hot dog to a nuke fight?

“Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” -- Donald J. Trump

 

[marke]

We need to have a national discussion about the concentration of wealth in this country and the ideas Cortez has put forth should be part of that discussion. Just like conservative ideas should be part of that discussion.

Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing? Are poor people being cheated because there are rich people?

 

[haymarket]

Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing? Are poor people being cheated because there are rich people?

It depends on where you believe the strength of a democratic republic lies - in the wealth of a few or in the great vast majority of the people.

I happen to believe in the latter.

 

[marke]

It depends on where you believe the strength of a democratic republic lies - in the wealth of a few or in the great vast majority of the people.

I happen to believe in the latter.

A democratic republic is endangered by rich people? How so? Do you think wealth is like a finite pie with only so many pieces to go around and which must be re-cut to give poor people bigger slices? If so, then we do need a big commie government to allot resources and to give each according to his need while taking away from others according to government need.

 

[RooseveltTruman]

Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing? Are poor people being cheated because there are rich people?

When a country has a deeply-entrenched class of turbo-rich people, these aristocrats can use their seemingly endless supply of money to rig the political system in their favor. They can effectively buy and sell politicians who will create laws that will give them even more power and money. It's undemocratic. Not only that, but it's bad economics. The hyper-rich are more likely to "sit on" their wealth than the low- and middle-classes. This means less money in circulation for the rest of the country. The upward redistribution of wealth that the United States' Republican Party favors is unsustainable.

 

[haymarket]

A democratic republic is endangered by rich people? How so? Do you think wealth is like a finite pie with only so many pieces to go around and which must be re-cut to give poor people bigger slices? If so, then we do need a big commie government to allot resources and to give each according to his need while taking away from others according to government need.

The reason is a simple one based on numbers: at the extreme it is the prospect of violent revolution by the dissatisfied who come to believe the so called democratic republic is NOT a government of the people , by the people and for the people as it is said to be. Short of that, it is public insurrection, riots, mob actions that disrupt the society and hurt innocent people.

 

[The Mark]

Yes, she is of age (in this hypothetical). This is a generic question. No opponents are named. This is just a question of would you ever vote her president or not.

Of course.

Well, assuming she ran on a platform I agreed with enough.

 

[OldFatGuy]

When a country has a deeply-entrenched class of turbo-rich people, these aristocrats can use their seemingly endless supply of money to rig the political system in their favor. They can effectively buy and sell politicians who will create laws that will give them even more power and money. It's undemocratic. Not only that, but it's bad economics. The hyper-rich are more likely to "sit on" their wealth than the low- and middle-classes. This means less money in circulation for the rest of the country. The upward redistribution of wealth that the United States' Republican Party favors is unsustainable.

Our wealthiest president was George Washington, and he turned down a king ship so he could sit on his porch smoking pipes of pot. Obviously you know nothing of wealth. Money that sits diminishes in value, purchasing power. The wealthy do not sit on their money, they invest it to make more money, the capitalization of businesses that earn profits. Businesses create jobs. The few successful socialist states underwrite their economies with government owned resources, like North Sea oil money.

Our nation is based on a capitalist system, not a socialist system, albeit with social programs to assist those in need. People have to earn their wealth, even those who inherit. For those who inherit, they must either learn to invest and earn increased wealth or watch that wealth dissipate. You paint with a broad brush. It is still the wealthy who compete to underwrite the philanthropies of this nation for the public good. It is still the wealthy who supply the majority of tax revenues.

No one is responsible for your lack of wealth other than you, and your failures give you no right to steal from those who have accumulated wealth. Becoming wealthy is the American Dream. It is the reason so many immigrants want to come to the US, where opportunities allow for the possibility of becoming wealthy.

We have no need of whining thieves who can't cut it on their own. This is a nation offering equal opportunities for all, not equal outcomes for all.

 

[marke]

The reason is a simple one based on numbers: at the extreme it is the prospect of violent revolution by the dissatisfied who come to believe the so called democratic republic is NOT a government of the people , by the people and for the people as it is said to be. Short of that, it is public insurrection, riots, mob actions that disrupt the society and hurt innocent people.

The disgruntled poor can be whipped into ignorant frenzies by evil manipulators seeking to overthrow the government through uncivilized riotous mob rebellions by playing on their greed and envy. A good government is not in the business of making sure the poor do not have cause to envy others, but to protect the rights of those who seek to contribute to the good of society by hard word and responsible behaviors and to protect their earnings from greedy people who want their stuff for themselves.

 

[haymarket]

The disgruntled poor can be whipped into ignorant frenzies by evil manipulators seeking to overthrow the government through uncivilized riotous mob rebellions by playing on their greed and envy.

Just like I said - that possibility only increases when there is good reason to whip people up about in the first place. And increasing large amounts of wealth in a few while the great bulk of people do not share in the wealth only increases the possibilities of bad things happening.

A good government is not in the business of making sure the poor do not have cause to envy others, but to protect the rights of those who seek to contribute to the good of society by hard word and responsible behaviors and to protect their earnings from greedy people who want their stuff for themselves

Actually a good government is in the business of trying to protect ALL CITIZENS RIGHTS. And when tens and tens and tens of millions feel there is no alternative to get what a few thousand have - then it hits the fan. History is proof of that.

And that is why concentrated wealth is bad for a democratic republic like ours. We could lose our very system of government.

 

[RooseveltTruman]

Our wealthiest president was George Washington, and he turned down a king ship so he could sit on his porch smoking pipes of pot. Obviously you know nothing of wealth. Money that sits diminishes in value, purchasing power. The wealthy do not sit on their money, they invest it to make more money, the capitalization of businesses that earn profits. Businesses create jobs. The few successful socialist states underwrite their economies with government owned resources, like North Sea oil money.

George Washington was a man of principle who'd be disgusted by the ultra-rich class that has developed in the United States since his time. Also, you reference "North Sea oil money" in reference to "socialist states." Norway is not a socialist country, it's social democratic (a type of capitalism). For the record, I'm a social democrat, too, so I'm opposed to true socialism. I don't think a ditch-digger and a surgeon should be paid the same amount. That's absurd. Some minor degree of income/wealth inequality is desirable. However, it's also a bad idea to give the mega-rich unlimited power to influence politics. Some members of the American aristocracy are good people who donate generously to charity, but many of them certainly are not and only have lining their own pockets on their minds. A democratic society should be vigilant to prevent itself from becoming a kleptocracy.

Our nation is based on a capitalist system, not a socialist system, albeit with social programs to assist those in need. People have to earn their wealth, even those who inherit. For those who inherit, they must either learn to invest and earn increased wealth or watch that wealth dissipate. You paint with a broad brush. It is still the wealthy who compete to underwrite the philanthropies of this nation for the public good. It is still the wealthy who supply the majority of tax revenues.

Yeah, I agree.

No one is responsible for your lack of wealth other than you, and your failures give you no right to steal from those who have accumulated wealth. Becoming wealthy is the American Dream. It is the reason so many immigrants want to come to the US, where opportunities allow for the possibility of becoming wealthy.

We have no need of whining thieves who can't cut it on their own. This is a nation offering equal opportunities for all, not equal outcomes for all.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say here, but one should be careful to not equate economic standing with moral virtue. We do not live in a just world. Some people work hard and barely get by, others inherit unimaginable fortunes, live on Easy Street, and hold views that are tantamount to Social Darwinism.

 

[marke]

Just like I said - that possibility only increases when there is good reason to whip people up about in the first place. And increasing large amounts of wealth in a few while the great bulk of people do not share in the wealth only increases the possibilities of bad things happening.

The reason the riches of the rich is a danger to society is because wicked seditionists stir up the poor by playing on their greed and envy to pointlessly protest against an 'evil' that does not exist. That is how the wicked took control of Russia under Lenin. Sadly, more than 30 million innocent Russians were murdered by the seditionists once they cemented their brutal control over the government.

Actually a good government is in the business of trying to protect ALL CITIZENS RIGHTS. And when tens and tens and tens of millions feel there is no alternative to get what a few thousand have - then it hits the fan. History is proof of that.

Poor people think the job of the government is to level the field so that nobody has riches if everybody does not have riches? Why must everybody have the same benefits and rewards others have for whatever reason? Should they get paid what doctors get paid even if the best job they can get is shoveling manure?

And that is why concentrated wealth is bad for a democratic republic like ours. We could lose our very system of government.

Yes, Russia was overrun by a handful of mercenaries out to gain control of wealth and power for themselves at everyone else's expense. The same thing could happen in America if American Bolsheviks have their way.

 

[haymarket]

The reason the riches of the rich is a danger to society is because wicked seditionists stir up the poor by playing on their greed and envy to pointlessly protest against an 'evil' that does not exist. That is how the wicked took control of Russia under Lenin. Sadly, more than 30 million innocent Russians were murdered by the seditionists once they cemented their brutal control over the government.


Poor people think the job of the government is to level the field so that nobody has riches if everybody does not have riches? Why must everybody have the same benefits and rewards others have for whatever reason? Should they get paid what doctors get paid even if the best job they can get is shoveling manure?



Yes, Russia was overrun by a handful of mercenaries out to gain control of wealth and power for themselves at everyone else's expense. The same thing could happen in America if American Bolsheviks have their way.

You want to argue WHY - I am not going to argue WHY. I simply recognize reality and history.

Once upon a time - perhaps you could hide the great disparity of wealth - but today, with mass media and mass communications and education and information - it cannot be hidden any longer. But even in places like France in the late 1700's - revolution hit and hit hard. Let them eat cake was not a good solution to the problem of income inequality.

I happen to love this country and its people and I do not want to see ripped apart in the pursuit of far right wing beliefs that do not serve the great numbers of the American people.

And I really do not think people object to riches. What they object to is somebody having a vast mountain of riches while so many else have relatively nothing.

We need to cut out the extremes and bring the sides closer. I do not object when somebody earns tens of millions a year and enjoys their hard work and the fruits of it. I do think billions a year - mostly making money from money - is what people object to and want curbed and controlled.

 

[OldFatGuy]

George Washington was a man of principle who'd be disgusted by the ultra-rich class that has developed in the United States since his time. Also, you reference "North Sea oil money" in reference to "socialist states." Norway is not a socialist country, it's social democratic (a type of capitalism). For the record, I'm a social democrat, too, so I'm opposed to true socialism. I don't think a ditch-digger and a surgeon should be paid the same amount. That's absurd. Some minor degree of income/wealth inequality is desirable. However, it's also a bad idea to give the mega-rich unlimited power to influence politics. Some members of the American aristocracy are good people who donate generously to charity, but many of them certainly are not and only have lining their own pockets on their minds. A democratic society should be vigilant to prevent itself from becoming a kleptocracy.

Nonsense. Washington was part of the ultra rich class. Learn your history. Labels do not change anything, Norway is a socialist nation, owning the primary sources of income, both the oil industry and the fishing industry. Your labeling of the "mega rich" is in itself a lie when claiming it is class with unlimited power to influence politics. Even the most wealthy have limitations. The aristocracy of this nation is the over compensate athletes and entertainers, and they are too busy loving themselves to say more than glancing phrase toward politics.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say here, but one should be careful to not equate economic standing with moral virtue. We do not live in a just world. Some people work hard and barely get by, others inherit unimaginable fortunes, live on Easy Street, and hold views that are tantamount to Social Darwinism.

You are being dishonest with yourself. You are equating "economic standing" with morality.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Isn't that a little bit like you bringing a hot dog to a nuke fight?

“Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” -- Donald J. Trump

was that your #1?

 

[spud_meister]

No, she's a populist.

 

[Mongidig]

If AOC was elected and the Green Deal implemented there would be a civil war.

 

[enderpotato00]

Nah. She's too socialist

 

[JC Callender]

I don't think we'll be hearing much about AOC in another 2 years. She's upsetting a lot of people, which would be fine if she were dignified and logical like Tulsi, but she's not. The leadership in her own party doesn't want her around. Their probably letting her take herself out with her own words.

 

[Fishking]

Not only YES, but H-E Double Hockey Sticks YES!!!

I would love to see the exploded heads and crapped knockers of Right Wing Nuts if on some early November election night AOC would be declared our "president elect".

Have no clue haw she might be at being president, but the scene of Right Wing defeat to that socialist would be true poetry!

Hey guys...we found someone who self-identified.