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

[lwf]

was that your #1?

Yes it is.

 

[lwf]

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.

This was the exact feeling in the Republican party about Trump as well. Right up until the end of the primaries. Then suddenly everyone embraced him in spite of how much they hated him.

 

[RooseveltTruman]

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'm aware that George Washington was very wealthy. My point is that just because Washington was rich and was a good citizen doesn't mean that all rich people are going to be good citizens. Also, Norway still isn't a socialist state. According to the most recent report on the "ease of doing business," Norway actually has a freer economy than the United States (source). Also, the rich can, in fact, be a threat to democracy. Have you heard of the robber barons?

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

Perhaps my point was put forth in a clunky manner. I wasn't trying to say all rich folk are morally depraved. As I mentioned elsewhere in my post, some donate generously to charities. Anybody of any economic standing can be vile and anybody of any economic standing can be virtuous.

 

[cpwill]

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!

Oh hey, look. This sounds exactly like the Trump people.

 

[cpwill]

Anywho, as to the OP: AOC argues that being "morally right" means she doesn't have to worry about silly facts. IOW, her feelings trump actual policy considerations. Not only no, but oh gosh, no.

 

[OldFatGuy]

I'm aware that George Washington was very wealthy. My point is that just because Washington was rich and was a good citizen doesn't mean that all rich people are going to be good citizens. Also, Norway still isn't a socialist state. According to the most recent report on the "ease of doing business," Norway actually has a freer economy than the United States (source). Also, the rich can, in fact, be a threat to democracy. Have you heard of the robber barons?



Perhaps my point was put forth in a clunky manner. I wasn't trying to say all rich folk are morally depraved. As I mentioned elsewhere in my post, some donate generously to charities. Anybody of any economic standing can be vile and anybody of any economic standing can be virtuous.

The "Robber Barons" helped build the nation. None of them went to prison, tho their tactics at times were deserving. Their heirs are still immensely wealthy and doing good for the nation. The Rockefeller's, Vanderbilt's, Carnagie-Mellon's, and so on. Tammany Hall's legacy in NYC left a legacy of architectural wonders. Money can be corrupt, Politics is corrupt. So what? Results count, not media campaigns and reform movement BS that proves just as corrupt.

 

[Sabre]

First, he's a drooling idiot. He's also a bigoted, racist liar, a shyster, and possibly a criminal. He is a dull, amoral scumbag, as well. Finally, I disagree with him passionately on multiple issues, and I find his cult annoying at best.

So no, I won't be voting for Tweety. Ever.

That's fine, I totally understand because that is basically how felt/feel about Obama. Isn't it great we live in a country were we have the freedom to vote however we feel. eace

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Not 2024 yet... should probably launch a 2022 senate bid first if successful

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Sure...but only if I was offered a free cell phone and the Onion replaced the NYTimes as the nation's flagship news source. Buffoons like AOC are not to be wasted, and the Republicans would then have a Democratic embarrassment indisputably more incompetent than the previous Democratic record holder, Jimmy Carter (and President more amusing than hound dog Bill).

Having AOC as President would provide object lessons, among them:

First, it would reinforce the awareness that things were going pretty well until they taught women how to read and write. Big mistake.

Second, it would underscore that college is not only over-rated, but for some, its bloody useless. If there was anyone ever made for bar tending or clown school, it is Ms. AOC.

Last, her inaugural dance would likely be a disaster. She would reenact her legendary talents in her video, to the awe and speechless silence of many.

So would I vote to see this...why I suppose I would.

 

[Oborosen]

So dismissing what you call the 'random' racist that exists here or there is your answer. And just like it's not the job of the GOP to forward a social issue, it's not my job to try to please your demands. After all, I'm a crazy liberal, nothing I say would convince you racism is alive and well in america.

Thank you for running away and proving my usual assumptions correct on the matter.

First, I am not dismissing the act of some random person, who most likely did as such in that bathroom as a childish stunt. Or the white nationalist in Charlottesville, or what was said concerning DeSantis (that you chose not to cite). I'm acknowledging that there are stupid people all over, though not in the numbers that account for the entire populace. I'm not the one trying to make a case that everyone is racist, simply because of a few outliers.

I gave you a chance to prove something, anything for that matter. But I knew you couldn't do it. I hoped for a moment that you would, though that same hope has been dashed more times than not in the past.

I'll just go ahead and say that I'm done with you now. Because it's obvious that you're not going to supply anything but your own version of reality on this matter.

 

[Oborosen]

You might want to learn the English language first if you think I’m projecting. I don’t look at women as just baby ovens and agree a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body unlike you anti choice fake freedom fascists.

Wow, there you go again.

Seeing as the original post you responded to had noting concerning that kind of belief in it.

It's obvious that this is nothing but your own projection, being tossed onto someone else.

 

[marke]

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.

Disparities in wealth and circumstances are not an evil to be solved by the socialist government. Even if disparities in wealth were an evil the government could not eliminate it without making everybody poor. It cannot make everybody rich and it cannot stop poor people from envying the rich.

 

[Helix]

That's fine, I totally understand because that is basically how felt/feel about Obama.

#buuuuuuuuuuuutObama! i don't remember him being a bigoted racist liar who was also a shyster, possible criminal, and a dull amoral scumbag. however,

Isn't it great we live in a country were we have the freedom to vote however we feel. eace

it's great that we have a vote, for sure. i'd prefer to not have it limited to two cookie cutter parties, but it is what it is.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Yes it is.

That's not crazy. That is a valid question. In response to a foreign policy person telling you that you can't use them. The correct response is why can't we use them. If your enemy knows you won't use them, then what good are they as a threat? That correct stance is what got the NK missiles to stop flying over our allies heads. Your stance that we won't use them is the reason they were flying in the first place. NK knew Obama wouldn't do jack squat except draw another red line.

 

[bongsaway]

Thank you for running away and proving my usual assumptions correct on the matter.

First, I am not dismissing the act of some random person, who most likely did as such in that bathroom as a childish stunt. Or the white nationalist in Charlottesville, or what was said concerning DeSantis (that you chose not to cite). I'm acknowledging that there are stupid people all over, though not in the numbers that account for the entire populace. I'm not the one trying to make a case that everyone is racist, simply because of a few outliers.

I gave you a chance to prove something, anything for that matter. But I knew you couldn't do it. I hoped for a moment that you would, though that same hope has been dashed more times than not in the past.

I'll just go ahead and say that I'm done with you now. Because it's obvious that you're not going to supply anything but your own version of reality on this matter.

Can you please be done with me forever and just skip over anything from me? Please.

 

[LouC]

I suspect his policies are far more the motivation for your dislike.

Mere sprinkles on the Trump crap cupcake.

 

[LouC]

No not at a federal level, but 29 states control the vote. Secondly where did I say electorals HAD to vote a certain way? Please cite my post.

Never said you did that.

I was merely putting that bit of fact out there "for the record".

 

[LouC]

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

LOL

Did that in my first post here at DP in the welcome aboard thread forum.

You are a little late to the party.

:wink:

 

[haymarket]

Disparities in wealth and circumstances are not an evil to be solved by the socialist government. Even if disparities in wealth were an evil the government could not eliminate it without making everybody poor. It cannot make everybody rich and it cannot stop poor people from envying the rich.

I see nobody advocating that everybody be exactly the same. Of course there will be rich and there will be poor and there will be those in between. What we are discussing is what are the reasonable limits our society will permit and what steps do we take when those limits are exceeded and threaten societal stability and peace?

 

[LouC]

Oh hey, look. This sounds exactly like the Trump people.

Except for the fact I full well know my vote would be premeditated and fired for effect.

Most Trump voters aka Trump people are totally clueless why they do the things they do or have done.

Big difference there, big, big difference,

 

[cpwill]

Except for the fact I full well know my vote would be premeditated and fired for effect.

Most Trump voters aka Trump people are totally clueless why they do the things they do or have done.

Big difference there, big, big difference,

Nope. Your sentiment and intent matches theirs exactly. Only the tribal Jersey is changed.

 

[Oborosen]

Can you please be done with me forever and just skip over anything from me? Please.

Can I ask you a question?

 

[LouC]

Nope. Your sentiment and intent matches theirs exactly. Only the tribal Jersey is changed.

Not in the least.

We will have to agree to disagree.

LOL

 

[lwf]

That's not crazy. That is a valid question. In response to a foreign policy person telling you that you can't use them. The correct response is why can't we use them. If your enemy knows you won't use them, then what good are they as a threat? That correct stance is what got the NK missiles to stop flying over our allies heads. Your stance that we won't use them is the reason they were flying in the first place. NK knew Obama wouldn't do jack squat except draw another red line.

It is crazy. It is absolutely crazy that the President of the United States of America didn't understand why we can't nuke other countries. That is the very definition of bat**** crazy.

 

[Visbek]

Our wealthiest president was George Washington, and he turned down a king ship so he could sit on his porch smoking pipes of pot.

Washington grew hemp. Not marijuana.

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 wealthy often store their capital in ways that do not, in fact, generate further economic activity.

When you purchase a stock, you're transferring capital to another individual (who may or may not spend it). However, owning the stock does not create jobs, or provide the company with any additional capital. All it does is sit there, until you are ready to sell.

Purchasing a home will generate some economic activity at the time of purchase. However, obviously people are hoping that it will appreciate in value much faster than whatever you've put into it, based not on economic activity generated by the home, but by an assumption that supply will drop and/or demand will rise.

Arbitrage, shorting stocks, credit default swaps, some derivatives, and other speculative vehicles also produce minimal economic activity. They do offer some benefit (primarily by increasing liquidity) but if you get rich off of exploiting differences in currency rates, you're not creating jobs.

Art, jewelry, collectibles, autos generate a little activity, but a Picasso doesn't appreciate in value over time because it's generating economic activity and providing someone with a job.

Economic rents are generally seen as negative for everyone except the rentier. E.g. patent trolls aren't creating jobs, in fact they may be hindering entrepreneurship by threatening innovators.

In contrast, buying bonds generates economic activity, because it's lending the capital to someone who is going to use it. We should note that the secondary market doesn't really create jobs, though it does help the market by enhancing liquidity.

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.

lol... No, inheritance isn't earned by the inheritor. How silly.

Income inequality has not been static. It was very high in the Gilded Age and rose to a peak before the Great Depression; it fell in the 1940s through 1970s; then, when Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, and CEOs decided to award themselves higher pay. There is a lot going on that has nothing to do with merit, and a lot to do with policies and self-dealing.

The wealthy can provide a huge range of advantages to their kids. They can afford high-quality education for their kids (without crippling debts), which enhances the personal networks that are critical for success. They give their kids excellent nutrition and medical care. The kids don't have to grow up in constant fear of crime, or subjected to asthma-inducing pollution. They can handle a $1000 emergency or being out of work for 6 months. Even the biggest screw-up can be prevented from blowing all their assets, if the parents set up a trust fund with halfway decent (i.e. non-embezzling) trustee.

We see this in mobility statistics in the US. If the only factor in economic success was merit, then we'd see something close to perfect mobility -- i.e. everyone has a 20% chance of ending up in any of the income quintiles. That's not what happens in the US. Instead, the top and bottom are "sticky" -- someone born in the top 20% or bottom 20% is highly likely to stay that way.

The idea that America offers "equal opportunity to all" or "it's all up to the individual" is not reality. It's a myth.

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.

The problem with the "philanthropy" argument is that the wealthy are getting wealthier that before, because of tax cuts. Instead of the public having some input on how we allocate resources to public goods, it's controlled by a small group who got wealthy, in no small part, because they figured out how to manipulate and alter the tax code to their advantage.

They also pay more in taxes because they are capturing all the income gains.

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.

sigh

Taxation is not theft. Income is not a function of willpower. And yes, there can be lots of external reasons why someone might not be wealthy.