AOC predicts she won't be president — because Americans 'hate women'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  304 comments

By:   Emily Crane (New York Post)

AOC predicts she won't be president — because Americans 'hate women'
The New York congresswoman speculated about the possibilities of her launching a future White House bid in a wide-ranging cover interview with GQ magazine published Wednesday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it's unlikely she could ever be elected president of the United States — because so many people in America "hate women" and "would never let that happen."

The socialist firebrand New York Democrat speculated about the possibilities of her launching a future White House bid in a wide-ranging and fawning cover interview with GQ magazine published Wednesday.

Ocasio-Cortez said that while she tries to hold onto the belief that anything is possible, her experience in Congress has "given me a front-row seat to how deeply and unconsciously, as well as consciously, so many people in this country hate women."

"And they hate women of color," added the 32-year-old, who was described in the article as the "political voice of a generation" and "bona fide culture celebrity."

"People ask me questions about the future. And realistically, I can't even tell you if I'm going to be alive in September. And that weighs very heavily on me. And it's not just the right wing. Misogyny transcends political ideology: left, right, center," the democratic socialist continued.

"I admit to sometimes believing that I live in a country that would never let that happen."

The socialist firebrand on the cover of GQ, which published Sept. 7. Cruz Valdez/GQ

Ocasio-Cortez said she struggles when young girls tell her they want her to be president one day.

"It's very difficult for me to talk about because it provokes a lot of inner conflict in that I never want to tell a little girl what she can't do," she said. "And I don't want to tell young people what is not possible. I've never been in the business of doing that. But at the same time…"

In addition to being a woman, the legislator claimed that her opposition to Wall Street could also hinder any potential bid for the presidency.

"Could [former President Barack] Obama have gotten elected without the kind of financial support that he had?" she said. "I don't know."

"Misogyny transcends political ideology: left, right, center," the democratic socialist said in her cover interview. Cruz Valdez/GQRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez insists Americans despise "women of color."Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Ocasio-Cortez also theorized how, even if she were to be elected commander-in-chief, she'd face the wrath of the political system — from the Senate to the Supreme Court — that she says would impede her goals.

"There are still plenty of limitations," she claimed. "It's tough, it's really tough."

Elsewhere in the interview, the congresswoman spoke of the "open hostility" she encountered from her own Democratic Party colleagues after taking office in 2018.

"It was open hostility, open hostility to my presence, my existence," Ocasio-Cortez said.

"Since I got here, literally day one, even before day one, I've experienced a lot of targeting diminishment from my party. And the pervasiveness of that diminishment, it was all-encompassing at times. I feel a little more steady on my own two feet now.

"But would I say that I have the power to shift the elected federal Democratic Party? No."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has previously criticized President Biden for not being progressive.Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ocasio-Cortez also delved into her personal life and relationship with fiance Riley Roberts in the interview, as well as why she decided publicly reveal she had been raped in her early 20s.

Weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots, the congresswoman took to Instagram to disclose that she was a survivor of sexual assault as she explained the trauma she relived during the insurrection.

"I could not talk about that day without disclosing it, because it was such a central part of my experience," Ocasio-Cortez said in the interview, referring to her account of having to hide in congressional offices as rioters stormed in.

"I felt like I could not really adequately communicate what that experience was without giving people the context of what I had lived through and what was being echoed, because so much of it was about resonance and fear of a thing that was not theoretical but a fear of a thing that I had experienced."

The congresswoman addressed the rape again when she spoke to anti-abortion protestors in Manhattan's Union Square after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in June.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes her chances for the White House are slim.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

She told GQ that she had carefully weighed her decision to open up further about being assaulted given how much her opponents - both on the left and right - have dissected her words since taking office.

"One major trauma that a lot of survivors of assault deal with is a struggle with being believed," she said. "There are aspects of it that I may never share because of the trauma of having that experience litigated in public."

Speaking about her notoriously private relationship with her fiance, Ocasio-Cortez said she questioned whether her being an independent, successful woman would affect them.

"The moment you start being yourself, they kind of freak out," she said. "I think it causes a conflict within them that they didn't even anticipate. It's not even a deception. It's just, they uncover insecurities that they didn't know were there."

But Ocasio-Cortez - who met Riley when they were 19 at Boston University — said the opposite happened when she was elected and thrust in the public eye.

"For him to experience us dating when I was still working as a waitress and a bartender through now and seeing how the world responds [to me], I think has been a very eye-opening experience for him as well," she said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

This ridiculous narcissist claims that a woman can't win the presidency. They are oppressed, supposedly like her, don't ya know! So says the woman named after a Conquistador!

So how did she get elected to congress?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago
So says the woman named after a Conquistador!

I'm sure there is a stray person out there who might find that sentence relevant, but I cant imagine who. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    3 weeks ago

Apparently you found it relevant enough to comment.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    3 weeks ago

She's an attention seeking drama queen moron. Even her own party can't stand her.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

She was produced via what has become an all too common democrat primary formula. Radical elements dominate those things these days. All they need do is nominate a radical and party affiliation takes over in the general election.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Sort of like the 100s of radical election deniers that have been nominated?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Sort of like the 100s of radical election deniers that have been nominated?

So election denying is bad today?  Hard to keep track with democrats position on the subject wholly dependent on who is doing the denying. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago
So says the woman named after a Conquistador!

What conquistador was named Alexandria?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.2.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago

The fear of a NY Congresswoman is palpable.

And understandable as she is unapologetic and eloquent, agree or disagree with her policies. A force to be reckoned with, and a voice that will heard to match the needs of the times.

As opposed to her alter egos on the right; apologists all, ineloquent to a fault, and destined to be soon forgotten outside a comedy skit.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
And understandable as she is unapologetic and eloquent

I just want to take in the glory of someone calling her eloquent.  She's a left wing twitter troll.  I guess if that's your idea of eloquence, she's your Queen. 

She a left wing MTG.   T

A force to be reckoned with, and a voice that will heard to match the needs of the times.

I can only hope you got paid for that.  

Imagine fangirling for a someone who puts on a performative  crying display over empty parking lots. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.2.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

“Imagine fangirling for a someone who puts on a performative  crying display over empty parking lots.”

Hah.

Imagine then, taking even a second to acknowledge her, dismiss her, and then contribute to a conversation about her.

Perhaps thou doth protest too much. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

aking even a second to acknowledge her, dismiss her, and then contribute to a conversation about her.

Amusing things amuse me. 

Do you admire everyone you comment on? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
A force to be reckoned with

Is she though? I like her sometimes, and other times, she makes me laugh or shake my head. But is she a force, really?

I mean, she’s plenty mouthy (no disrespect intended). She tweets and talks and goes on tv, and all that. But does she actually drive change? Does she build effective coalitions, raise party money, get other people elected, or promote critical legislation? Does she get out the vote? In what way is she a force to be reckoned with?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
she is unapologetic and eloquent
  • "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."
  • "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."
  • "We need to invent technology that’s never even been invented yet.”
  • I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
  • $21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”
  • “Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system.”
  • “ICE is the only criminal investigative agency, the only enforcement agency in the United States, that has a bed quota. So ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night and that number has only been increasing since 2009.”
  • “They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper-middle class is probably more moderate but that upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America.”
  • “In a Koch brothers-funded study — if any study’s going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers — it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”
  • “The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.”
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.5    3 weeks ago

AOC has tremendous charisma and the future is almost certain to be more progressive than the past. The sky is the limit for her, in time. I think she is 32 years old. In terms of politics, she has all the time in the world. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

No doubt about it, AOC is an idiot.

And people who can't recognize it are suspect, too.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    3 weeks ago
AOC has tremendous charisma

I think she does, and her brand of it obviously appeals to a certain percentage of the electorate. Unfortunately, that same sort of defiant, angry female persona turns off a lot of voters, too. It’s the kind of thing that hurts people like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.

I think AOC needs to do something more substantive than be an exciting young mouth in the House to attain higher office. But she’s young, and she’s got time. As her seniority grows, she will accumulate real power in committees.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
1.2.10  gooseisback  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago
What conquistador was named Alexandria

No, it was Bartender.

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
1.2.11  Diablo Imperius  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago

Alexandria the great.

Or maybe it was that one that was the progenitor of the taco I get them confused.

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.2.12  dennissmith  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.8    3 weeks ago

She makes idiots look smart. 

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.2.13  dennissmith  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.9    3 weeks ago

AOC even makes Kamala Hairless look sound like a smart person. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  dennissmith @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
AOC even makes Kamala Hairless look sound like a smart person. 

Wow. That’s actually a solid take. I hadn’t thought about that before. I can’t say that’s wrong. Would I prefer AOC to Harris for VP? Yeah, maybe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  dennissmith @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
Kamala Hairless

Seriously?    Kindergarden ‘wit’?  Mangling names in itself is low-grade and immature, but this does not even make sense.

Disregarding the witless jab, I agree that Harris is entirely unimpressive and should never be so close to the presidency.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.15    2 weeks ago

"Kamala Hairless"

And look who votes up that nonsense.  

They obviously share the kindergarten 'wit'

Along with Brandon.

It's so immature and kindergarten 'wit' as you say.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.17  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

32 years old and growing older every day. How long before she is considered to old and out of touch?

Problem with being a radical; there is always someone younger and more radical than you coming along.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.3  squiggy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Queen Elizabeth read this hard-luck story and fell the fuck over.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

She's classy, pretty, and smart.  No wonder you all fear her!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.1  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4    3 weeks ago
She's classy, 

As a two dollar hooker

pretty 

As the winner of an ugly dog contest 

smart 

As a block of wood. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.3  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.4  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.5  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.5    3 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.7  arkpdx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.6    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.7    3 weeks ago

Who are you referring to now arkie?  Me or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.7    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.10  arkpdx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.9    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.11  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.8    3 weeks ago

Guess. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.12  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.11    3 weeks ago

Either way, neither she nor I are losing a wink of sleep over it.

Like either one of us would be interested in you!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.13  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.10    3 weeks ago

I think you're confused about who would be the embarrassed one in that pairing.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.14  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.3    3 weeks ago

Like I said at 1.4.2

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.4.15  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.13    3 weeks ago

AOC ain't that bad. She might be worth the 2 bucks

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.16  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.15    3 weeks ago
AOC ain't that bad. She might be worth the 2 bucks

I'd pay her the two bucks just to shut the fuck up.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.4.17  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @1.4    2 weeks ago
She's classy, pretty, and smart. 

None of that is criteria for election, because millions of other women fit the description. 

What matters is ... How many bills has she successfully gotten passed in the HoR? That's her real job - to work for the people. She utterly failed her district with her Amazon debacle.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.18  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.17    2 weeks ago
How many bills has she successfully gotten passed in the HoR? That's her real job.

Hey, one of the bills she sponsored has made it to the floor of the Senate---a bill she sponsored almost 3 years ago.

Everything else is in committee or referred to committee, including many bills she 'sponsored' long with everyone in the Democratic Party.

My guess is why she has been so ineffective is because all Republicans want to date her and are misogynists!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.19    2 weeks ago

Well, in her defense, she has been pretty busy on Twitter and in staging photo ops and criticizing Republicans and Democrats alike.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.4.21  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.18    2 weeks ago

So, in over 3 years, the Socialist beauty queen hasn't accomplished anything as a federal legislative representative. Maybe she's been too busy posing for photo spreads and posting on social media to do her job.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.22  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.21    2 weeks ago
So, in over 3 years, the Socialist beauty queen hasn't accomplished anything as a federal legislative representative. Maybe she's been too busy posing for photo spreads and posting on social media to do her job.

All talk, no substance.

Which makes her a leading candidate for Democratic Party leadership.

Maybe she has just been struggling with how to pay her college loans (which have been put on hold) off on her paltry salary.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.4.23  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.22    2 weeks ago
Maybe she has just been struggling with how to pay her college loans (which have been put on hold) off on her paltry salary.

That would be funny except that she's "earned" over $525,000 (plus generous perks) paid by taxpayers since 2019, still can't afford to buy a house or apartment, and is allegedly too poor to pay off her BU college loans.

My kids are just a little older than AOC and earn a lot less than she does. They've all paid off their college loans and own their own homes. Their only debt is their mortgage. It seems that AOC didn't learn anything about money management while she allegedly earned a cum laude degree in Economics.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.18    2 weeks ago

"....because so many people in America hate women."

Not true, but people in America do detest and dislike women like AOC!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.19    2 weeks ago

Last I read, she was 3rd from the bottom of the list,

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.26  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4.25    2 weeks ago

Sounds right.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4.24    2 weeks ago

Many also detest and dislike men like AOC.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.27    2 weeks ago

Lol...!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.29  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.19    2 weeks ago

Over a quarter of House members are rated lower than AOC in your link. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.30  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.4.29    2 weeks ago

230th out of 240 Dems.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.31  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.30    2 weeks ago

Over 60 Republicans are ranked lower. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.4.31    2 weeks ago

Why would you compare members of the minority party with members of the majority party in legislative effectiveness?

That said, if you want to compare, that would mean that in addition to the 229 House Dems more effective than AOC, there are around 150 minority House Repubs more effective.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.4.31    2 weeks ago
Over 60 Republicans are ranked lower. 

Well, DAMN, IF we were talking about Republicans you would have made a valid statement that was appropriate. Instead, you deflected because THIS article is about AOC, which reading it would have informed you of.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.34  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.32    2 weeks ago
Why would you compare members of the minority party with members of the majority party in legislative effectiveness?

I based my comment on YOUR claim.

You stated that the study 'has her as one of the least effective members of the House.'

I pointed out that at least a quarter of the members of the House are LESS effective per YOUR link. 

That said, if you want to compare, that would mean that in addition to the 229 House Dems more effective than AOC, there are around 150 minority House Repubs more effective.  

YOU set the standard, not I. 

There are MANY 'members of the House' who are LESS effective, which is MY only point. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.4.34    2 weeks ago
I based my comment on YOUR claim.

I based my comment on the linked study from the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

YOU set the standard, not I.

No, the Center set the methodology and metrics.  Those include the number of bills that each member of the House of Representatives sponsored; the number of those bills that received any action in committee, action beyond committee and how many pass the House and how many become law.

Obviously, their is a very significant advantage of being a majority member in the House.  OAC had the lowest score of any DEM Rep from NY and was 230th out of 2408 DEMs in the House.

I stand by this Centers claim.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.36  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.35    2 weeks ago
I stand by this Centers claim.

Then you 'stand by' nothing since the 'Center' made no claim here, YOU did. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.4.36    2 weeks ago
Then you 'stand by' nothing since the 'Center' made no claim here

Of course they did, they assigned her a Legislative Effectiveness Score, her Overall Score was 0.209 which ranked her as 230 of 240 members.  They didn't include minority members in her ranking for the obvious reasons which you choose to disregard. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

Class, pretty, and smart are usually only skin deep in some people. In AOC's case, they don't go past the top layer of skin. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.39  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.37    2 weeks ago
They didn't include minority members in her ranking for the obvious reasons which you choose to disregard. 

You DID include minority members in your original claim, now you want to move the goal posts. 

BTW, Jackie Walorski has been heralded since her death, they just renamed a VA clinic after her, yet her overall score is 0.139. Guess IOKIYAR. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.4.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.37    2 weeks ago

AOC is not a run of the mill politician, she is a national voice for a segment of her generation. Many of the 229 House members "ranked" above her for effectiveness no one outside their district has ever heard of. 

Some politicians, because of their positions or their personal charisma develop national followings and that is AOC. 

To compare her to the 220th ranked House member is almost silly. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.41  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.4.39    2 weeks ago
You DID include minority members in your original claim

My original comment, 1.4.19: "This University study has her as one of the least effective members of the House." and it included the link to the study.

now you want to move the goal posts.

I've moved no posts.  You want to disregard the obvious.  Of course what you really want to do is to just continue this semantics game.  I don't mind indulging you for a while as it amuses me. But all good things come to their end.  For me, that time in this thread is now.  I invite you to have the last word.

BTW, given the VA's track record, I not sure that Jackie Walorski is really being honored.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.4.42  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4.38    2 weeks ago

You concede AOC is smart and pretty and classy, and she is. She is also kind, generous and hard working. She is always feeding the poor at a homelesscshelter or cleaning up a blighted lot to build a community garden or meeting with her constituents. A half dozen candidates tried to unseat her and failed...

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.40    2 weeks ago
Many of the 229 House members "ranked" above her for effectiveness no one outside their district has ever heard of. 

Exactly, they fail to put in the necessary Twitter time.

To compare her to the 220th ranked House member is almost silly. 

You should let the Center know that their evaluation criteria is almost silly, maybe you could recommend more serious criteria, perhaps you would include number of tweets, number of Twitter followers, appearances on talk shows, some sort of national voice measurement. personal charisma measurement, etc. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.4.44  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.43    2 weeks ago

I'm just telling you the truth . If you want to turn it into some sort of offended mish mash that is up to you. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.44    2 weeks ago
If you want to turn it into some sort of mish mash that is up to you. 

Mish mash?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.46  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.41    2 weeks ago
My original comment,  1.4.19 : "This University study has her as one of the least effective members of the House." and it included the link to the study.

Thanks for stating the obvious. 

I've moved no posts. 

You did. 

You want to disregard the obvious. 

I am calling out the obvious. You stated 'the members of the House' but now want to exclude it to the Democratic members of the House. Bad form. 

Of course what you really want to do is to just continue this semantics game.  I don't mind indulging you for a while as it amuses me. But all good things come to their end.  For me, that time in this thread is now.  I invite you to have the last word.

Semantics isn't a game, it's the study of meaning using logic. Give it a try. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.47  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.41    2 weeks ago

As a retired/disabled vet in AZ who has to use the VA medical system on occasion I agree with you 100%!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.48  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.4.46    2 weeks ago

AOC is simply ineffective as a legislator by any measurement.

She has zero bills sponsored signed into law.

If that equates with being successful, perhaps your method of measurement should change.

It is a waste of time to bitch about the methodology used to rate her when it is the same way they rated ALL members of Congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.49  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.4.46    2 weeks ago

I see you refuse to acknowledge that AOC is ineffective and instead choose to argue, well,  nothing, really.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.50  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.17    2 weeks ago

What you say doesn't matter in the slightest.

Remember 

It is nice to be important

But it's more important to be nice

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.51  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

Classy right off the bat as usual arkie and your friends who vote up that kindergarten 'wit'

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.52  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.17    2 weeks ago

Bottom line is AOC comes off as just a shallow piece of work who is only out for herself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.53  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4.52    2 weeks ago

OIP.n2q23az2X0XefWPick3XrgHaFn?w=242&h=183&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
1.5  Diablo Imperius  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

So is her boyfriend not American?  I thought he was. That and the fact that he looks like a complete doofus. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

She has a broken brain. It’s sad that some people go through needing to feel persecuted and oppressed for some reason.

the scary part is that she is a representative in government with actual power, rather than just being drag on the people  around her,

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 weeks ago
It’s sad that some people go through needing to feel persecuted and oppressed for some reason.

Evidently BU calls that "World History,"  as did Karl Marx.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 weeks ago
It’s sad that some people go through needing to feel persecuted and oppressed for some reason.

gee, I thought the topic was AOC, [removed]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 weeks ago
She has a broken brain.

Not sure if it was broke before but her brain got a good washing by academia.    A four year liberal/progressive fluff and buff compliments of BU.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 weeks ago
She has a broken brain. It’s sad that some people go through needing to feel persecuted and oppressed for some reason.

While I agree that what she believes in is broken, there's nothing wrong with her brain. She isn't feeling sorry for herself in saying what she did. Rather, it is a political move calculated to achieve a political goal. Specifically, it is intended to manipulate shallow thinkers from thinking about what her policies are and, instead, support her on the emotional grounds of misogyny. It goes something like this...

AOC opponent: Your policies on immigration and the border are wrong because (list of reasons). 

AOC: You hate women.

She does this so that she doesn't have to address the charge made by her opponent and instead, redirects everything to something that is objectively impossible to prove. It is a tactic many on the Left continually employ in order to avoid having to defend their policies. When someone states an objection to a desired goal, just accuse them of some sort of emotional hot button, like misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and whatever other unprovable emotional issue you can come up with. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
2.4.1  gooseisback  replied to  Drakkonis @2.4    3 weeks ago
AOC: You hate women.

AOC: I have a vagina vote for me. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The word socialist is used to describe Ocasio-Cortez four times within a span of just 315 words. Yet nothing in the GQ interview appears to be about socialism. 

LOL.  At the least , the NY Post article is biased against AOC. 

800

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

Socialism?

I'm still trying to figure out how a white woman, a daughter of an architect, is "oppressed?"

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
Socialism?

He's trying to use it as a distraction.  A failed attempt but an attempt nonetheless.

I'm still trying to figure out how a white woman, a daughter of an architect, is "oppressed?"

The same way millionaire football and basketball players are "oppressed"?  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago

Who went to one of the more expensive colleges in the country ....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

You are being kind. Around here there is a nick name for BU which I would never use.(It's blatantly anti-Semitic).  Let's just say that a BU education is nowhere as good as a BC education.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
3.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
I'm still trying to figure out how a white woman, a daughter of an architect, is "oppressed?"

Especially since she lived all of her K-12 life in a private home in upscale, privileged Yorktown Heights, NY before her privileged BU years. 

On separate occasions in 2021, she claimed that she was stalked and sexually assaulted in her 20s. She goes on to claim that she never filed police reports, because she didn't think police would believe her. It's easy to make claims 10+ years after the fact! She also wanted us to believe that she felt that she was going to die on January 6, 2021 even though she wasn't even in the Capitol Building.

This woman has serious, unaddressed mental health issues, IMO. Even though she's miraculously achieved fame without a shred of intellectual honesty, she's learned to use her feminine wiles to do it. She actually thought that people would be interested in watching a video of her applying makeup!

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
3.1.5  dennissmith  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago

She is a victim of her own mind. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

LMAO!

So true!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

Hasn't she identified herself as a member of Democratic Socialists of America?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    3 weeks ago

Hold on;

Chalk up a big one for Drinker!!!!

AKA: A slam-dunk!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    3 weeks ago

According to an interview she did she is a member.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

You people need to get real for a change. There is only one reason she would be described as a socialist 4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea that she is a radical. 

The GQ article does not seem to be about that, but the NY Post, now a right wing rag, doesnt care. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig........................she is radical. Look at all the free shit she screams for and the "everybody gets a trophy" equality mentality.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
There is only one reason she would be described as a socialist 4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea that she is a radical. 

Yes she is. So is your president who is enacting everything AOC believes in.


The GQ article does not seem to be about that,

It's a man's. mostly fashion, magazine.


but the NY Post, now a right wing rag, doesnt care. 

So far the Post has made the Times look like a lying sack of shit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
here is only one reason she would be described as a socialist 4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea that she is a radical.

Or to drive home the point that she is, in fact, a SOCIALIST.  You know, like she ADMITS TO.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
You people need to get real for a change.

The irony is astonishing.

There is only one reason she would be described as a socialist 4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea that she is a radical. 

It is a biased publication and she is a radical.  2 + 2 is predictably turning out to equal 4.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

"Hold on;

Chalk up a big one for Drinker!!!!

AKA: A slam-dunk!"

No.

Never.

Happened.

Never.

Will.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.4    3 weeks ago

Quit dissing pigs by comparing them to AOC

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.11  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @3.2.10    3 weeks ago

How do you separate a pig lover from his pig? With a crowbar!

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.11    3 weeks ago

Didn't you say something yesterday about wanting to scald pigs before butchering them?  Is this interest in pork something new or does it go back to you OK roots?

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3.2.14  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea

Aw, relax. Even presidents ramble  on with labels.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.2.15  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @3.2.11    3 weeks ago

Nice picture of you. The guy in the red shirt is a bit fat though. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    3 weeks ago
Hasn't she identified herself as a member of Democratic Socialists of America?

Yes, she has, but apparently facts don't matter if they are mean to liberals.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

You don’t need to use a period if you’re not writing sentences.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

Socialism is oft-used (INCORRECTLY) as a synonym for social democracy — aka the benevolent-state-centric use of capitalism to fund public programs as seen in Nordic nations and throughout Europe.

The USA too has social democracy, albeit in a weaker form.

There is no fixing this;  the word 'socialism' is so overloaded now that it has become virtually meaningless.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 weeks ago
There is no fixing this;  the word 'socialism' is so overloaded now that it has become virtually meaningless.

Exactly, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that she is a democratic socialist, what does that mean?  What does she think about capitalism?  Can it be reformed or do the markets intrinsically harm people and should be abolished?  What does reform or abolishment look like?

Bernie claims to be a socialist, is he looking to get rid of capitalism? 

Are they ignorant of the meaning of the term or just playing to there base?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.1    2 weeks ago
Exactly, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that she is a democratic socialist, what does that mean? 

I am pretty sure she means social democracy.   Democratic socialists use social democracy as a stepping stone.   The terminology is utterly polluted 

What does she think about capitalism? 

My guess is that she is good with small 'c' capitalism (people working small businesses) but is against large 'C' capitalism as is typified by transnational corporations.   To wit, she probably favors competition, hard work, etc. and is against powerful monopolies.   I have seen no indication that she knows much of socialism per Marx.

Can it be reformed or do the markets intrinsically harm people and should be abolished? 

Market economies are good.    They span both capitalism and socialism (per Marx).    Demand economies like the former U.S.S.R. are bad and should be reconsidered ONLY when we have a much better understanding of the complex dynamics of a competitive market based economy.   (We are nowhere close at the moment.)

What does reform or abolishment look like?

Good question.

Bernie claims to be a socialist, is he looking to get rid of capitalism? 

No.   Bernie goes after powerful concentrations of wealth and power.   He is a great fan of capitalism with a small 'c'.

Are they ignorant of the meaning of the term or just playing to there base?

Bernie contradicted himself left and right when running for PotUS.   And I think Bernie is light years ahead of AOC in understanding these principles.   I do not understand why Bernie ever called himself a socialist ... the only positive is to differentiate but at every other turn the label is a major negative.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

I agree.

She is either unable or has chosen to not explain the kind of socialism that she’s talking about. Of course, Bernie never explained what he really meant either.  I see both as populists as Trump is, obviously they have different groups of disgruntled, angry supporters and so they promote differing policies to assuage that anger.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.3.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

To me, one word for Bernie's actions and to AOC as well. 

VOTES. It's the be all end all reason for what they say and do. A lot of other politicians of all ideologies use the same tactics.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.4    2 weeks ago

If the one word is 'socialism' then you might as well use the word 'glicktoplex' because it has about the same meaning as 'socialism' without qualification.

If someone claims they support socialism one must ask them how they define the term in order to get any meaning from the declaration.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.3    2 weeks ago

Bernie basically supports the social democracy of the Nordic nations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

Socialism , social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than  private ownership or control of property  and natural resources.



It seems very straightforward. Why all the fuss over what the word means?

In my lifetime, we have had various examples of Socialist economies. All of them fail sooner or later. One thing I've noticed. All along the way there were those (obviously Socialists) who inform us that each failure wasn't really "Socialism."  That must be the reason for all the controversy over a simple economic system that has appealed to so many full time students.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.7    2 weeks ago
Socialism , social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than  private ownership or control of property  and natural resources.

Correct.    Is that what you think Bernie seeks?   That is, do you think Bernie seeks changing our economic system from capitalism (private ownership/control of productive resources of the economy) to socialism?

It seems very straightforward. Why all the fuss over what the word means?

Because, as I noted, the word is overloaded in meaning.

  • Do you, for example, think that social democracy (what Bernie seeks) is socialism per the above definition?   
  • Do you understand the difference between public ownership and state ownership of economic resources?
  • Do you understand how public ownership is achieved?    That is, have you any example of the public actually owning and controlling the productive resources of their economy and thus having economic freedom (vs. being oppressed by an owning/controlling state)?
  • Do you recognize the problem of someone calling 'socialism' the practice of government hosted public services?   Some even claim that services like the post office, the military, etc. are 'socialism'.   Some claim social security, etc. is 'socialism'.

My point is that the word 'socialism' is anything but well-defined when used in sentences.   There are many overloaded definitions for the word so there is no way to know what a person means unless they qualify the word.

All along the way there were those (obviously Socialists) who inform us that each failure wasn't really "Socialism."  

I am not a socialist and I will tell you that socialism (per Marx) has never existed.   There has never been a 'first-world' nation where the public owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.   There have been plenty of nations where the state has owned and controlled same.   Both are naively (ignorantly) labeled 'socialism' yet are (and this should be obvious) profoundly different.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.3.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
Both are naively (ignorantly) labeled 'socialism' yet are (and this should be obvious) profoundly different.

I'm a capitalist but recognize that unless you're completely heartless, you shouldn't force an elderly retired person to pay the supply/demand rate of gas or electric during the middle of winter or middle of summer where their lives would be at risk simply because they couldn't afford to keep the heat or AC on. That's where a social safety net and government subsidies should come into play so that the power company can keep charging market rates, but we don't have tens of thousands of people dying of heat stroke or freezing to death simply because they are too old, disabled or infirm to work and pay the market rate for necessities.

I think the ideal, and what America has been striving for since the inception of social security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, is a capitalist society with a heart.

Republicans scream and stamp their feet claiming the "heart" should only be provided through Churches and non-profits and the government should stay out of it. Democrats tend to disagree and think the government and thus all of us collectively through taxation should support those in need. Republicans call that socialism even when it clearly is not, but they have pounded the fantasy definition into the heads of their members just like so many rightwing conspiracy theorists have pounded the fantasy of a 'deep state' into their member's heads.

As long as Republicans keep repeating the same bullshit narrative about what socialism is (and the fantasy 'deep state') they can keep their members in a perpetual state of fear which of course Republican politicians use to motivate their voting base to keep them in power as a check on that fantasy fear. And pointing out they're fucking lying just makes them sink deeper into their delusion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.9    2 weeks ago

Unfettered capitalism is akin to libertarianism or anachro-capitalism. These are dog eat dog economic philosophies. 

Capitalism creates poverty among a segment of the population. There has never been a time or a place since the dawn of capitalism where it has not created poverty alongside wealth. Social safety net programs are simply the price we must pay to have a working capitalism for everyone. Sensible people do not object. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.10    2 weeks ago
Unfettered capitalism is akin to libertarianism or anachro-capitalism.

Is someone advocating that?

Capitalism creates poverty among a segment of the population. 

The poorest countries in the world aren't poor because of 'unfettered capitalism", they are poor because of a lack of investment capital, heavy government intervention and regulation of business. 

.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.11    2 weeks ago

I am talking about the United States. Our social safety net is for Americans. You have a way of always trying to shift the topic. 

Has trickle down economics worked for America? Our income inequality is the highest it has ever been. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.11    2 weeks ago
Is someone advocating that?

Yes.   Observe those who defend all profiteering as 'fair game'.   Capitalism (small 'c') is a very good system which encourages competition and hard work and (often) rewards those efforts.   Capitalism (large 'c') is a game of control (up to oppression) and the players of said game are the largest transnational corporations and states.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
I am talking about the United States.

I was talking about extreme poverty.

Our social safety net is for Americans.

Of course.

You have a way of always trying to shift the topic. 

The topic was socialism, democratic socialism, poverty and capitalism.  I shifted nothing.

Oh, and tweeting and charisma.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.13    2 weeks ago
Capitalism (small 'c') is a very good system which encourages competition and hard work and (often) rewards those efforts.

In the US, 1 in 9 is self-employed, in India it is 19 out of 20.  Surprisingly, many more Indians immigrate here rather than American emigrate there.

Capitalism (large 'c') is a game of control (up to oppression) and the players of said game are the largest transnational corporations and states.

Unitary Politics (large 'P') is a game of control (up to oppression) and the plays of said game want much great control, for the state, of the largest corporations. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.15    2 weeks ago

If large corporations are not "controlled" to some extent by the government, do you seriously believe they will act in a way that promotes the common good? There is no evidence of this. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.15    2 weeks ago
In the US, 1 in 9 is self-employed, in India it is 19 out of 20. 

Where did you get that statistic?   What I see is about 50% and the definition of self-employed does not mean strictly owner of a business but rather someone who does not have a single paying entity;  think of 1099 workers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.18    2 weeks ago

Where did you get the India stat?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.19    2 weeks ago

I first wrote it from memory.

Since you asked I've looked it up and found:

Self-employed, total (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) in India was reported at 76.01 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. India - Self-employed; total (% of total employed) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on September of 2022.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.16    2 weeks ago
If large corporations are not "controlled" to some extent by the government

The argument is control or no control but rather what type and how much.

There is no evidence of this.

In the early 80's  more than 42 % of the world lived in extreme poverty today it is less than 10%.  Capitalism did that

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.22  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.21    2 weeks ago
In the early 80's  more than 42 % of the world lived in extreme poverty today it is less than 10%.  Capitalism did that

Some folks seem to like to criticize capitalism, but can never seem to name any other system that has produced more wealth and helped more people live better.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.3.23  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.20    2 weeks ago
Self-employed, total (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) in India was reported at 76.01 % in 2020,

In third world and developing countries, this could mean owning a vegetable stand or vulcanizing shop out of a literal shack. Yes, they are businesses, but not like what we define owning businesses here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
Is that what you think Bernie seeks? 

Bernie says he wants "college for all,' "housing for all," "free child care & pre K for all," "reproductive health care for all," etc, etc etc. So, the answer is that Bernie is a true Socialist. He wants all of the above, yet the specifics on how we will pay for all of that are missing. That always comes later.

That is, do you think Bernie seeks changing our economic system from capitalism (private ownership/control of productive resources of the economy) to socialism?

Yes.

  • Do you, for example, think that social democracy (what Bernie seeks) is socialism per the above definition?   

    Yes


  • Do you understand the difference between public ownership and state ownership of economic resources?

    Yes

    Do you understand how public  ownership is achieved?   

    Perhaps you could give us an example.


    Do you recognize the problem of someone calling 'socialism' the practice of government hosted public services? 

    There is a fine line between the basic services government provides and Socialism. Safety & security is a basic function of government.


    Some even claim that services like the post office, the military, etc. are 'socialism'.  

    I'm not one of them.


     Some claim social security, etc. is 'socialism'.

    Social Security is the most popular government program in the world. It has become the vital safety net in American society. Is it one of the basic items government is supposed to provide?  I say no . Is it Socialistic? It is a touch of Socialism. Many Americans depend on it and politicly can never be taken away.


    My point is that the word 'socialism' is anything but well-defined when used in sentences.   There are many overloaded definitions for the word so there is no way to know what a person means unless they qualify the word.

    It seems very clear to me. 


    I am not a socialist and I will tell you that socialism (per Marx) has never existed.   There has never been a ' first-world ' nation where the public owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.   There have been plenty of nations where the state has owned and controlled same.   Both are naively ( ignorantly ) labeled 'socialism' yet are (and this should be obvious) profoundly different.

    I disagree. All of the failed authoritarian states we see around the world today are either Socialist or Marxist. What was Venezuela? The idea of the public  owning and controlling the productive resources of an economy cannot work. Do you know why?  Because what the people really need and want can only be determined by the Market. Planned economies can never get it right. An economy btw is a very fragile thing. Never fix what is not broken.

    The Iron Maiden said it best:

    "The philosophical reason for which we are against nationalization and for private enterprise is because we believe that economic progress comes from the inventiveness, ability, determination and the pioneering spirit of extraordinary men and women. If they cannot exercise that spirit here, they will go away to another free enterprise country which will then make more economic progress than we do. We ought, in fact, to be encouraging small firms and small companies, because the extent to which innovation comes through these companies is tremendous."



    And since you, as you say, are not a Socialist, I don't expect that you'll have any problem with what the Great Margaret Thatcher said.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.25  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago

Who doesn't like free chicken?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.26  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago
Bernie says he wants "college for all,' "housing for all," "free child care & pre K for all," "reproductive health care for all," etc, etc etc. So, the answer is that Bernie is a true Socialist. He wants all of the above, yet the specifics on how we will pay for all of that are missing. That always comes later.

Yes he does!   And that is exactly following the social democracy playbook.   Bernie is a social democrat ... particularly in tune with the social democracy of the Nordic nations.   I just explained this.

Social democracy is not socialism.   A little more detail:  social democracy = highly regulated capitalist engine funding social programs administered by government.

How, given you provided a definition, do you equate what Bernie wants with public control over the productive resources of the economy?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.27  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago
There is a fine line between the basic services government provides and Socialism.

No, Vic, there is NOT!   Public services are an entirely different factor from the ownership and control of the resources of an economy.   All modern nations have public services.   Increasing the amount of public services does not make you 'socialist' ... it does, however, make you more of a social democracy.   The USA is a mild social democracy.   The Nordic nations are mature, more saturated social democracies.

What was Venezuela?

State capitalism.   It was an authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises.   On top of that, it was an attempt to implement a control economy (vs. a market economy).   It was an example of the worst thing that one can do.    Now, do you actually believe the people of Venezuela ever had control over the productive resources of their economy under what you call 'socialism'?

The idea of the public  owning and controlling the productive resources of an economy cannot work.    Do you know why?  Because what the people really need and want can only be determined by the Market. Planned economies can never get it right. An economy btw is a very fragile thing. Never fix what is not broken.

You are conflating public ownership of the productive resources of an economy with a command economy.   The two are different.    Market-based socialism is the most common form of socialism discussed today (theory).   The main reason is that command economies are far too complex to implement.   We might be able to do that in the future but we have no chance of doing so today.

And since you, as you say, are not a Socialist, I don't expect that you'll have any problem with what the Great Margaret Thatcher said.

Is it really so hard for you to comprehend that one need not be a socialist to be informed on socialism?   And Margaret Thatcher used the term 'socialism' to incorrectly refer to European social democracy.   Back to my point of the term 'socialism' being overloaded and meaningless.    Thatcher was pointing out the problem with having too many government programs funded by the capitalist workforce.   Social democracy!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.28  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago

Which Americans are undeserving of a good education, comprehensive healthcare, food, a living wage and a safe place to call home?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.29  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.3.28    2 weeks ago
Which Americans are undeserving of a good education, comprehensive healthcare, food, a living wage and a safe place to call home?

Any and all capable of working for those things but refusing to do so.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.30  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.25    2 weeks ago

Ahh yes, the selling point!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.26    2 weeks ago
Bernie is a social democrat

Offer him my apologies and warn him that if I ever run into him that I'll give him a good kick in the ass.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.27    2 weeks ago
And Margaret Thatcher used the term 'socialism' to incorrectly refer to European social democracy. 

In other words, you don't think they taught economics at Oxford University?


  Thatcher was pointing out the problem with having too many government programs funded by the capitalist workforce.   

Had she only had the chance to go to school with you!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.3.28    2 weeks ago

I got you down as a Sanders man.

Do you know what yesterday was?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.34  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
"I am talking about the United States. Our social safety net is for Americans. You have a way of always trying to shift the topic."  "Has trickle down economics worked for America? Our income inequality is the highest it has ever been." 

It is not you John who is always trying to 'shift the topic'

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.3.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago

Interesting thing is that Bernie just cannot quite be pinned down on how exactly all the "free stuff" he wants to give out will be paid for. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.36  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.35    2 weeks ago
Interesting thing is that Bernie just cannot quite be pinned down on how exactly all the "free stuff" he wants to give out will be paid for.

I'm sure that it would be covered like all extra stuff is, we will borrow more.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.3.37  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.35    2 weeks ago

According to AOC, "You just pay for it."

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.38  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.37    2 weeks ago

Keeping it simple, AOC is good at that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.39  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.35    2 weeks ago

We'll just have to trust him. After all, we just learned that isn't really a Socialist after all.

I wonder why the DNC stifled his nomination bid twice?  He does seem to have a lot of support among young democrats.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.40  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.32    2 weeks ago
In other words, you don't think they taught economics at Oxford University?

Is sarcasm all you have to offer?   There are plenty of people who use the term ' socialism ' to refer to ' social democracy '.   As I told you upfront, the word ' socialism ' is overloaded:  it is used loosely to refer to all sorts of incompatible systems.   The word, abused, has become a mess.

To have an intelligent discussion of ' socialism ', one must use definitions and qualification.  The word ' socialism ' unqualified is so overloaded as to be meaningless.

If Thatcher were to speak of socialism per Marx she would not use the phrase " other people's money " because that concept makes zero sense under that paradigm.   It does, however, make great sense under social democracy — the system in place in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

Note: 

This quotation is congruent with an oft-expressed opinion which casts socialism as a form of government that continuously expropriates private capital until all the industry in the country has been nationalized (or until the country’s economy has been run into the ground, whichever comes first).

This is social democracy run to the extreme where the system has essentially devolved into state capitalism.   

Under Marx, there is no concept of the state owning the productive resources of the economy.   The people (in particular, the proletariat) own and run all of the businesses as owner/workers.   There is no "other people's money".   Thatcher was clearly not speaking of socialism per Marx.   And that makes sense since there was (and is) no nation whose economy is based on socialism per Marx.

She was speaking of systems that were in existence at the time.   Those systems were state capitalism of the USSR, et. al. and social democracy in Europe.   Both are lumped into the overloaded term 'socialism'.

Had she only had the chance to go to school with you!

Resorting to this crap instead of having a discussion.   What I have described in my prior post is easily verified with serious research.   You can either have an adult discussion or engage in sarcasm.    Why do you choose sarcasm?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.41  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.40    2 weeks ago
Is sarcasm all you have to offer?

I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between Socialism and a "Socialist Democrat" the way you have.


 Why do you choose sarcasm?

Because I asked you to give us an example of "public ownership" and you ignored me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.42  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.41    2 weeks ago
I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between Socialism and a "Socialist Democrat" the way you have.

Why does this amaze you?   The concept of socialism per Marx is profoundly different than social democracy.   People are constantly tossing the label 'socialism' around and have all sorts of different meaning.    Further,  social democracy is a form of capitalism.    Don't you think it is good for people to understand that?   The USA has a mild social democracy;  don't you think people should realize that too?

Because I asked you to give us an example of "public ownership" and you ignored me.

This is a lame tactic Vic.   I went into a detailed discussion which you have largely ignored.   You resorted to sarcasm on my content and now come back with the feeble excuse that you did this because you think I did not specifically address one of your items.

Note how your one item got into the discussion:

TiG @3.3.8 ☞ Do you understand how public ownership is achieved?    That is, have you any example of the public actually owning and controlling the productive resources of their economy and thus having economic freedom (vs. being oppressed by an owning/controlling state)?

My point here is that there has never been a system where the public actually owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.

You come back with this response:

Vic @3.3.24Perhaps you could give us an example.

You clearly missed the point of what I described.   I was stating that there is no example of an economy based on this principle.   One way such an economy might evolve (some time in the future) is if worker coops (businesses collectively owned by the workers) were to become dominant.   But that, again, was NOT the point I was making.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.3.43  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.41    2 weeks ago
I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between Socialism and a "Socialist Democrat" the way you have.

That's like saying "I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between "Living" and "Unliving" the way you have. I mean, they both have the word 'living' in them so they must be the same thing...".

Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

As pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a government that uses taxes to pay for (from private vendors) good and services for the elderly, disabled, infirm and children and an "authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises" as was pointed out.

Just because you apparently can't see the glaring differences doesn't mean they're not there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.44  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.39    2 weeks ago
After all, we just learned that isn't really a Socialist after all.

If Bernie were a socialist (again anchoring on socialism per Marx) then he would be calling for a revolution of the proletariat where the workers seize their workplaces and take control over the productive resources of the economy.   That is what Marx envisioned as 'socialism' or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.   In his time, revolution was more common and had a chance for success.   Today, the thought is absurd (at least in the USA).   

Marx however held that this revolution would need to take place after a mature industrial base had been established — one that could provide the resources for all the people in the nation.    He also stipulated that it would require the proletariat be sophisticated enough in their understanding of their situation to pull this off.   

Bernie might want a world where everyone has economic freedom ... collective control over the productive resources of the economy.   But it seems to me he is smart enough to realize that, very likely, nobody alive today will ever see such a system in the USA.   In a practical sense, capitalism is our system for the foreseeable future and Bernie necessarily must work with that.   Ergo, social democracy.   Social democracy is government regulated capitalism that funnels revenue from the capitalist engine to provide for programs such as health, education, etc.   That is Bernie's game.   Bernie is a social democrat.    

Bernie labeling himself a 'socialist' is stupid on many levels.   First, the word on its own has many meanings (is overloaded).   Second, the word (largely due to the expropriation of the word by the former USSR) has major league negative connotations.   I just never have understood why Bernie would go there.   He should just use the label that matches his policies:  social democracy.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.44    2 weeks ago
Bernie labeling himself a 'socialist' is stupid on many levels

Exactly, the man owns three homes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.46  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.35    2 weeks ago

Of course not;  the only way to pay for this is to dramatically increase taxes / borrowing.    One could argue that a wholesale reengineering of government could rip out sufficient waste to fund this, but there is no chance in hell that our government systems will undergo such a transformation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.47  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.42    2 weeks ago
The concept of socialism per Marx is profoundly different than social democracy. 

Ok TiG


 Further,  social democracy is a form of capitalism.  

I see. So we shouldn't fear it?


Don't you think it is good for people to understand that? 

I think it is good for all US students to be taught as much as possible about economics.


 The USA has a mild social democracy;  don't you think people should realize that too?

I think many people realize the unique form of the US economy. Many don't understand the federal debt. This "mild democracy" as you call it was a fixation with Paul Ryan. You may recall his attempt to reform it: 

"The military is not the reason we’ve got fiscal problems. It is entitlements,” Mr. Ryan said, blaming the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for a deficit that’s likely to top $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future."



Have I got it?



My point here   is that there has never been a system where the public actually owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.

I see. So you think there has never been a single example? I vaguely recall two car companies in France. One was a private company and the other public. The private company was taxed enough to fund the public one. Maybe not?


 One way such an economy  might  evolve (some time in the future) is if worker coops (businesses collectively owned by the workers) were to become dominant.   But that, again, was NOT the point I was making.

Ok TiG, I think we have both given the subject more attention than it deserves. You explained it well.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.48  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.45    2 weeks ago
Exactly, the man owns three homes.

That really is irrelevant.   Personal property is different from private property.   There is nothing in Bernie's philosophy that suggests people cannot accumulate personal property / wealth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.49  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.43    2 weeks ago
That's like saying "I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between "Living" and "Unliving" the way you have.

Only the living would do so.


As pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a government that uses taxes to pay for (from private vendors) good and services for the elderly, disabled, infirm and children and an "authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises" as was pointed out.

And that is a blatant defense of "Socialism."

Thanks.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.44    2 weeks ago
 He should just use the label that matches his policies:  social democracy.

Yup. It might make it easier for him to get elected too!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.51  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.45    2 weeks ago

Oh, did I need a good laugh!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.52  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.47    2 weeks ago
Ok TiG

This is not per me, it is a fact.   I have provided a summary but you can do research and see this clearly for yourself.

I see. So we shouldn't fear it?

Who is talking about fear?      Social democracy is in place in the USA today.   Any economy that taxes its capitalist engine and uses the revenue to fund social programs is, by definition, engaging in social democracy.   Thus there is no reason to fear this system.    The problem with any particular economic system is when it goes to an extreme.   That is what we should fear.   Right now our system is running on the extreme of consolidated wealth and power by transnational corporations.   Does that not concern you or do you not realize it is happening?

This "mild democracy" as you call it was a fixation with Paul Ryan. You may recall his attempt to reform it: 

It is mild social democracy, not mild democracy.   And yes, medicare, etc. is a fine example of social democracy in the USA.

I see. So you think there has never been a single example? I vaguely recall two car companies in France. One was a private company and the other public. The private company was taxed enough to fund the public one. Maybe not?

It is not what I think, it is a fact.   No first-world nation has ever had an economy based on socialism per Marx.   There are, however, examples of the principles of Marxism in organizations such as Mondragon (there are hundreds of major coops in the world).   But that is a cooperative corporation, not a nation.

I think we have both given the subject more attention than it deserves. 

I disagree, people are clearly confused about 'socialism' and wind up holding positions out of ignorance.   They wind up rejecting good ideas because the ideas are labeled 'socialism'.   For example, a national healthcare system for the USA is labeled 'socialized' and 'socialism' and thus categorically rejected by millions.   Yet we could devise a system that is based on standardization and sharing through national administration and implemented predominantly through competitive private enterprise.   But the 'socialism' stigma keeps us from pursuing this.

Ignorance is counterproductive and can be dangerous.   One should reject ideas on their merits, not because of some boogey-man label and a cloud of confused ignorance.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.53  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.49    2 weeks ago
And that is a blatant defense of "Socialism."

Jackie%2BChan%2Bfacepalm%2Bwhat%2Bwhy%2Bwould%2Byou%2Bdo%2Bthat.jpg

Unbelievable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.54  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.52    2 weeks ago
This is not per me, it is a fact.

I did say OK?   I'm not disputing it.


They wind up rejecting good ideas because the ideas are labeled 'socialism'.  

But you are not a Socialist?


For example, a national healthcare system for the USA is labeled 'socialized' and 'socialism' and thus categorically rejected by millions.   Yet we could devise a system that is based on standardization and sharing through national administration and implemented predominantly through competitive private enterprise.   But the 'socialism' stigma keeps us from pursuing this.

Here we can have a real debate. I think the national healthcare system in the USA is a terrible combination of two systems. On the one hand the government used a socialized system to pay for it and on the other hand the healthcare industry is a wide open free enterprise sector charging whatever it pleases. It is one area where I wish we had done what Europe has done: control costs!

Why did we go half way down the road on national health care?


One should reject ideas on their merits, not because of some boogey-man label

I agree and I'm sure Bernie would also agree!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.55  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.54    2 weeks ago
But you are not a Socialist?

Do you think that one is a socialist simply by noting that some socialist ideas are good?    Are you automatically a D if you agree with some D policy?

Do you think workplace cooperatives are a good idea?    If so, would you ipso facto be a socialist?

I think the national healthcare system in the USA is a terrible combination of two systems. On the one hand the government used a socialized system to pay for it and on the other hand the healthcare industry is a wide open free enterprise sector charging whatever it pleases. It is one area where I wish we had done what Europe has done: control costs!

So by your opening reasoning does that make you a social democrat?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.56  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.54    2 weeks ago
Here we can have a real debate. I think the national healthcare system in the USA is a terrible combination of two systems. On the one hand the government used a socialized system to pay for it and on the other hand the healthcare industry is a wide open free enterprise sector charging whatever it pleases. It is one area where I wish we had done what Europe has done: control costs!

This so much,  too bad I cannot upvote more than once.  It seems that the try for Medicare for All will once again raise it's head.  That is an incredibly stupid fix to the problem because it tries to only fix from one side of the problem.  We saw the issue when Covid first hit and hospitals halted all elective care, we had hospitals laying off large groups of nurses and closing floors and almost having to close their doors (there were a good number of rural hospitals that did have to close their doors) all because the Medicare re-imbursement rates are not sufficient to meet costs.  Having worked in the medical insurance area for a great many years I also know of many doctors / medical groups that would close shop rather than just accept the Medicare rates as they would just lose money.  Without controlling the costs there is no way the government can fix the problem.  We have the same issue with higher education in this country, the recent forgiveness program for college loans does nothing to control costs and in fact will help encourage higher borrowing and higher tuitions with the expectation that the government will just once again forgive the loans down the road.  

Sometimes I think that our federal government was the true authors of the script 'Dumb and Dumber'.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.57  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.55    2 weeks ago
Do you think that one is a socialist simply by noting that some socialist ideas are good?  

No. BTW I once did that here. What I actually said was that every economic system has some good selling points. It was a very interesting discussion, TiG.


Are you automatically a D if you agree with some D policy?

Not necessarily.


Do you think workplace cooperatives are a good idea?

I'm not sure.


If so, would you ipso facto be a socialist?

Yes.


So by your opening reasoning does that make you a social democrat?

It means that such a policy would be better than the one we now have. How about what I asked you?  Why didn't Obamacare control costs?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.58  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.56    2 weeks ago
So by your opening reasoning does that make you a social democrat?

How long have they been talking about allowing Medicare to negotiate costs?

There are times when I'm convinced that our elected representatives are dedicated to keeping the professional class comfortable.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.59  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.48    2 weeks ago
There is nothing in Bernie's philosophy that suggests people cannot accumulate personal property / wealth.

Exactly, we need that to be available for taxing.

Bernie is modest enough that he doesn't talk about his personal wealth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.60  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.57    2 weeks ago

You think that someone who supports coops is ipso facto a socialist??   If one supports national healthcare, is one ipso facto a social democrat?   If one supports border control, is one ipso facto an R?

Seriously,Vic, you leap to label based on support of a single factor?   What a great way to oversimplify reality and, in result, produce a bizarro perception of reality.

Why didn't Obamacare control costs?

Because it is a result of partisan politics rather than a serious attempt to solve our healthcare problem.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.3.61  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.53    2 weeks ago
Unbelievable.

I know, right? It's like talking to a brick wall. It reminds me of a joke.

Two conservatives were walking through the woods when they came upon a pair of tracks. The first conservative said "Those are moose tracks." The second conservative disagreed "Nope, those are wolf tracks.". They were still arguing when the train hit them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.62  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.24    2 weeks ago
So, the answer is that Bernie is a true Socialist.

Yes, but not because of what you describe, and possibly not even intentionally.  He's sort of a quasi-socialist.  At least that's what he says.

Bernie claims to simply want to tax all your money and spend it on social programs.  In itself, that's not actually socialist.

He wants to provide some of those services through nationalizing various industries, which IS socialist.  He wants to nationalize the health insurance industry, for example.  

The problem with all of these ideas is that you very quickly run out of other people's money.  He doesn't admit that, because he and his followers live in the fictional world of Bernie Land, where they use Bernie Math, so he pretends all of his idiocy will work.

When it doesn't, and reality proves that Ayn Rand had a point, he'll be forced to nationalize more and more industries...which of course makes him a true, full-blown socialist.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.63  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.61    2 weeks ago
They were still arguing when the train hit them.

Unusual, normally the area around the railbed is kept clear and is only in the woods if abandoned. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.64  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.62    2 weeks ago
Bernie claims to simply want to tax all your money and spend it on social programs.  In itself, that's not actually socialist.

Correct.  It is social democracy.   

He wants to provide some of those services through nationalizing various industries, which IS socialist. 

That would be state capitalism (and also a key part of fascism), not socialism (per Marx).     Socialism (per Marx) is an interim stage between capitalism and communism (per Marx .. entirely different from communism per the former USSR) wherein the proletariat (the workers) are in control of the productive resources of the economy.   Nationalizing industries puts the control under the state, not the people.   

The problem with all of these ideas is that you very quickly run out of other people's money. 

Agreed.   A 'benevolent' state with such power will almost certainly screw things up.  The normal equilibrium established by a competitive market no longer exists.

When it doesn't, and reality proves that Ayn Rand had a point, he'll be forced to nationalize more and more industries...which of course makes him a true, full-blown socialist.

Expropriation of the private sector by the state is not socialism per Marx;  it is state capitalism (the predominant system of the former USSR) and could well be fascism depending upon the circumstances.   If it were socialism per Marx then the people in general would have increasing economic freedom; they (not the state and not private capitalist owners) would collectively control the productive resources of the economy.   The systems historically labeled as 'socialism' have been the exact opposite — where the people are controlled and exploited.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.65  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.56    2 weeks ago

Last year I had a heart procedure with a couple complications. The total hospital bill was almost a quarter of a million dollars. Medicare paid almost all of it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.66  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.64    2 weeks ago
Socialism (per Marx) is an interim stage between capitalism and communism (per Marx .. entirely different from communism per the former USSR) wherein the proletariat (the workers) are in control of the productive resources of the economy.   Nationalizing industries puts the control under the state, not the people.   

It's a fairy tale distinction.  In the real world, with any population of any size, "the people" and "the state" become interchangeable almost immediately.

So nationalizing an industry is de-facto bringing the means of production under control of "the people". 

Expropriation of the private sector by the state is not socialism per Marx;

Describing "socialism per Marx" is sort of describing Never-Never Land, including but not limited to the incredibly unrealistic directions on getting from here to there.

If it were socialism per Marx then the people in general would have increasing economic freedom; they (not the state and not private capitalist owners) would collectively control the productive resources of the economy.

Increasing from what?  Certainly not from a capitalist system. 

The systems historically labeled as 'socialism' have been the exact opposite — where the people are controlled and exploited.

Because that's where they always go.  Almost immediately.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.67  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.46    2 weeks ago
One could argue that a wholesale reengineering of government could rip out sufficient waste to fund this,

I'm not sure the math would support that.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.68  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.65    2 weeks ago

I had to have surgery a while back. I saw the bill and it was a little over 250k.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.69  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.66    2 weeks ago
It's a fairy tale distinction.  In the real world, with any population of any size, "the people" and "the state" become interchangeable almost immediately.

The people and the state are not interchangeable.   There is a profound distinction between the state controlling the productive resources of the economy and the people being able to do so with a democratic process.   For example, many theoretical models have a regionalized system which allows capital and resource allocations to be done in a distributed fashion where local communities compete over businesses they will support in their communities.   In addition, models wherein businesses are predominantly workplace democracy, necessarily distribute control given each worker is also part owner.   

These are all theoretical so I have no problem with you considering them impractical or unproven;  that is fair criticism.   But it is incorrect to deem state ownership/control and demos ownership/control to be the same.   We will not see anything like this in our lifetimes because it is indeed impractical under extant conditions, but it would be a mistake to presume that our reality will remain unchanged or that future human beings can never devise a system under this philosophy that is practical for their environment.

So nationalizing an industry is de-facto bringing the means of production under control of "the people".

Absolutely not.   The examples of this not being so are numerous.   Nationalizing an industry is anything but defacto providing control to the people.   Do you, for example, hold that the people of Venezuela or the former USSR have/had control over the productive resources of their economies?   If so, you have a very strange definition for the word 'control' or 'economy'.

Describing "socialism per Marx" is sort of describing Never-Never Land, including but not limited to the incredibly unrealistic directions on getting from here to there.

Irrelevant.  It is what it is.   Socialism per Marx is the most definitive philosophy of socialism in existence.   The fact that it is impractical today as Marx presented it does not change the fact that it is the core definition of socialism.   The theoretical models for socialism, based on this philosophy, consider the modern world and vary from Marx' vision (e.g. dictatorship of the proletariat) in that they are inherently incremental.    They still are not something we will ever see in our lifetimes since many conditions are simply not satisfied, but I would not be so bold as to declare they (or some variant) will never be the preferred economic paradigm in the future.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.70  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.67    2 weeks ago
I'm not sure the math would support that.

Well I think we would need to flesh this out in substantially more detail before making claims about the mathematics.   Part of the fleshing out is gaining a clear view on what the word 'waste' actually means in this context.   There is a ton of spending taking place by our federal government.   Given what other nations can do, I am inclined to think the USA could do likewise.   I also pretty much know that in business and especially in government, there is typically major league waste.   Not easily corrected, but it is there to be tapped.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.71  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.65    2 weeks ago
Last year I had a heart procedure with a couple complications. The total hospital bill was almost a quarter of a million dollars. Medicare paid almost all of it. 

I'm glad that  you recovered.  

For that hospital bill, that was the total bill from the hospital.  What was the Medicare allowed and how much did the hospital write off?  How many days were  you in the hospital and how many of those days were in an ICU bed vs a regular bed?  

The issue is the Medicare reimbursement rates vs the hospital bill.  The Medicare rates are very much reduced from the overall bill and the hospital is forced to accept the rates if they want to work with the federal government, there is no negotiation in what Medicare will pay. Medicare paid most of your bill, do  you mean that your co-pay's and/or deductibles were very low?  Did you actually get to see the initial hospital bill and the final bill on what Medicare allowed and how much the hospital had to write off?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.72  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.69    2 weeks ago
The people and the state are not interchangeable.   There is a profound distinction between the state controlling the productive resources of the economy and the people being able to do so with a democratic process.

In theory, maybe.  In reality, the state is how the people are organized.  It is how human beings meet the basic need for structure.

These are all theoretical so I have no problem with you considering them impractical or unproven;  that is fair criticism. 

Let's be honest, they are proven to be so completely impractical that they cannot actually be implemented.  

Absolutely not.   The examples of this not being so are numerous.   Nationalizing an industry is anything but defacto providing control to the people.   

In this world of hyper-unrealistic theory, the state is simply the organizational structure by which the will of the people is carried out.  

The fact that it is impractical today as Marx presented it does not change the fact that it is the core definition of socialism.

I never suggested it wasn't the core.  I simply said Marx wrote a fairy tale.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.73  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.70    2 weeks ago
The fact that it is impractical today as Marx presented it does not change the fact that it is the core definition of socialism.

Let me see if I can consolidate what we're talking about over several posts spread pretty far apart.

The question here is "how would Bernie pay for the things he wants to give away"? ...and then "can it be paid for from savings in current waste"?

If we remember that he's been promising it for decades, we'll assume that one of those things is healthcare, and there isn't enough government waste to get close to paying for that.

"BernieCare" would actually cost over $4trillion in the first year, escalating from there.  The US govt brought in about $4trillion in tax revenue for 2021.  Even if we got to 0% waste, there is nowhere near enough money.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.74  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.71    2 weeks ago

My cancer treatment lasted for 18 months with 3 hospital stays totaling 78 days.  Medicare paid approx. $650,000, my secondary insurer (Tricare) picked up most of the rest, $68,000 and a significant amount was written off, although I've never added it up.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.75  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.72    2 weeks ago
In theory, maybe

The difference exists.   It is a fact that the people are NOT the state.   Our current inability to devise a practical system that allows demos control without enabling state control does not change the fundamental distinction between demos and state.

Let's be honest, they are proven to be so completely impractical that they cannot actually be implemented.  

I am being entirely honest. 

First, how can you say something that has never been attempted is proven impractical?   Lenin violated Marx' philosophy before he even began his campaign.   Marx held that socialism is based on a mature industrial base and a mature capitalist system that had become so top heavy that the proletariat were:  a) well aware of their situation and b) were sophisticated enough to achieve a revolutionary change in control and paradigm.   None of this was true of Russia in 1917.   Next Lenin almost immediately seized state-level control.   The demos never had control and this only worsened with Stalin.   Since the whole concept of Socialism per Marx is control by the demos, the label of 'socialism' applied to the former USSR is absurd on the onset.   But of course using the label of 'socialism' for marketing reasons made great sense back then and that is why Lenin, Stalin, ... use the term.   Not any different than labeling a new spending bill the 'Inflation Reduction Act'.

Second, I am not going to be so bold as to say that future generations will never evolve to a different paradigm.   Seems to me that it would be silly to think that they would remain unchanged.   We continue to see changes in paradigm with factors such as cryptocurrency, distributed workplace, individual entrepreneurs (e.g. the YouTuber phenomenon, cyber businesses, etc.).   The brick & mortar industrial paradigm is waning.   We will see the need for fewer individuals 'reporting for work' due to fundamental changes such as AI replacing white-collar knowledge worker jobs (and no alternate jobs for the displaced workers to rise to ... unlike the similar technological impact on manufacturing) and as the population increases without a commensurate increase in jobs (a decrease is almost certainty) we will be forced into change; hard change.

On what grounds would one, given the above changes that are taking place in the present and in the short-term, hold that many decades in the future societies would not be unrecognizable to us today?    Like I said, I think 'unrecognizable' is more likely than 'pretty much what we have now'.

I never suggested it wasn't the core.  I simply said Marx wrote a fairy tale.

So what?   My point is that people use the term socialism without understanding what they are talking about.   It matters not how practical the Marxian philosophy.   It does matter if someone calls anything they dislike 'socialism' rather than use well-defined terms like state capitalism, fascism, social democracy, etc. to specifically identify their target.

So rather than simply cry 'socialism', we would be far better served by identifying an increase in social democracy as a problem and speaking intelligently about how to deal with it.  Putting forth an amorphous term like 'socialism' (unqualified) ends intelligent discussion at its onset.   To wit, those who complain about socialism (unqualified) are offering emotion rather than thoughtful notions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.76  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.73    2 weeks ago
The question here is "how would Bernie pay for the things he wants to give away"? ...and then "can it be paid for from savings in current waste"?

I do not think he can.   That is not, however, what we were talking about.

If we remember that he's been promising it for decades, we'll assume that one of those things is healthcare, and there isn't enough government waste to get close to paying for that.

Is Bernie's concept the only one that you will accept for a healthcare system?   Seems to me that we have an extent system and we have waste.   We know that it is impossible to use our existing resources to produce an effective national healthcare system (one that, IMO, should be centrally standardized by the government and implemented in a competitive market)?    I do not buy that.

"BernieCare" would actually cost over $4trillion in the first year, escalating from there.  The US govt brought in about $4trillion in tax revenue for 2021.  Even if we got to 0% waste, there is nowhere near enough money.

Bernie is a dreamer.   Don't limit yourself to his rhetoric.   I have never given Bernie's promises any credence.   But the basic idea of national healthcare I think makes great sense and there are plenty of ways to approach this.

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
3.3.77  shona1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.74    2 weeks ago

Morning Drinker..I am three years down the track stem cell replacement, hospital stays, has to be well over half a million by now.. medications were $20,000 a month but as I am on a trial they are free.. the government has now put them on the free list...

So far all up have not paid one cent and no longer have health insurance. Stopped it years ago.

I actual head back to St Vincent's Melbourne tomorrow..not been there for near on 1.5 years COVID does have its advantages..

I have decided to hire a plane one hour trip compared with five hours in a car...my cousin's son will be the pilot..

Stay well and live long..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.78  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.71    2 weeks ago

I was in two hospitals. The bill from one was 85,000 and from the other one was 170,000. Medicare Advantage paid a little less than 250,000. I was in the hospitals for 22 days. I think I was in cardiac ICU for 5 or 6 days, I cant remember which. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.79  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  shona1 @3.3.77    2 weeks ago

You as well.  Happy skies.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.80  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  shona1 @3.3.77    2 weeks ago

I just saw that you’re having a particularly bad flu season this year.  Hope you’re well past getting your shot.  It on my list for Fri.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.3.81  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.75    2 weeks ago
First, how can you say something that has never been attempted is proven impractical?

That presumes it hasn't been attempted and just failed instantly.... which it would be prone to do.

Lenin violated Marx' philosophy before he even began his campaign.

Exactly.

Second, I am not going to be so bold as to say that future generations will never evolve to a different paradigm.   Seems to me that it would be silly to think that they would remain unchanged.

There is no chance of things remaining unchanged.  I just don't think we'll move in that direction.  Too many fundamental human nature issues stand in the way.

Putting forth an amorphous term like 'socialism' (unqualified) ends intelligent discussion at its onset.   To wit, those who complain about socialism (unqualified) are offering emotion rather than thoughtful notions.

Well...yeah.  But the term socialism is certainly not unique in that aspect.  That's just the unintended consequence of a society so efficient that cognitive effort is optional.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.82  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.81    2 weeks ago
That presumes it hasn't been attempted and just failed instantly.... which it would be prone to do.

Going by history, Jack.   I need not presume anything.   

I just don't think we'll move in that direction.  Too many fundamental human nature issues stand in the way.

I agree on that.   Where we go is a bit difficult to predict, but it is true that human beings tend to seek leaders to follow.   Leadership almost certainly means power and politics and thus access to abuse.   Note, however, that this is likely what naysayers said when our founders were proposing a monarchy-free federated constitutional Republic.   Note also that even our founders did not think it possible for the demos to elect the PotUS without many safeguards like the human electors.

But the term socialism is certainly not unique in that aspect. 

Of course, but right now the term 'socialism' is the one we are discussing.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.83  Snuffy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.74    2 weeks ago

Would be interesting to see how much was written off.  Cancer treatments can be very expensive as it's treatments that run over multiple days as you experienced.  Costs can vary depending on the type of cancer you have, the cost for a round of chemotherapy can run anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 depending on the type of cancer.  If you end up having multiple runs of chemo (and 18 month trip kind of suggests multiple rounds) then the cost can go even higher.

The average cost for cancer treatment is around $48,000 a year, but some types of cancer can run as high as $1,000,000.  

Glad you beat the cancer, hope you stay free for the rest of your life.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.84  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.78    2 weeks ago

Were those bills the Medicare bills or the original bills from the hospital?  Did they show how much was written off due to the Medicare limits?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.85  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.83    2 weeks ago
If you end up having multiple runs of chemo (and 18 month trip kind of suggests multiple rounds) then the cost can go even higher

I had Stage 4 abdominal cancer that originated in my appendix (pretty rare).  Treatment consisted of 8 infusions of chemo (40 hours each) followed by Cytoreductive surgery with a 90 min intraperitoneal hypothermic chemoperfusion before flushing and closing me up.  I started surgery prep at 0630 and woke up in surgical ICU at 0730 the next day.  2nd and 3rd order effects required  chest surgery to repair diagram injury and pleural effusions (both lungs),cased by cancer removal.  Final surgery was to reverse the temporary ileostomy that the first surgery required.  Concluded with another round of 8 chemo sessions (extra insurance that I probably didn't need).  

One of my large bills beyond hospital and chemo was for intravenous total parenteral nutrition (TPN) as I didn't eat for 9 months and needed supplemental TPN for another 4 months. 

Currently I get a CT scan every 4 months and blood panels every three.  The only treatment I still require is a drug for the chemo induced neuropathy in my feet and hands.

I had a great local oncological team a an exceptional surgical team at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.  I know that I'm a very lucky man.  This experience has dramatically changed how I think about health care and how it should be paid for.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.86  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.60    2 weeks ago

I was very gracious and listened to all you had to say and you wind up by saying I leap to label and that I simplify.

I wish you could leave the personal stuff out, but so be it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.87  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.86    2 weeks ago

I commented on what you wrote, not on you as a person.   This is a feeble attempt (and all meta) to accuse me of making things personal.

Read what I wrote:

TiG @3.3.60 ☞ You think that someone who supports coops is ipso facto a socialist??   If one supports national healthcare, is one ipso facto a social democrat?   If one supports border control, is one ipso facto an R?  Seriously, Vic, you leap to label based on support of a single factor?   What a great way to oversimplify reality and, in result, produce a bizarro perception of reality.

There is a difference between making statements about you as a person (e.g. Vic is a simpleton, etc.) versus critical assessments of the content you have provided.

Note:  you did not clarify your meaning or rebut what I wrote, you just went to meta.

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
3.3.88  shona1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.80    2 weeks ago

Avro...all good here..had my flu vaccination and four COVID vaccinations...

Last I saw there are around 2,000 infections a day, hospital cases are down to low 200s and deaths per day approx 10 to 15 in Victoria.

I have avoided both COVID and the flu and still do the basics... avoid large crowds in confined spaces, wash my hands and wear a mask...

And live, I refused to hide away and went about my daily life and routine...and I can't wait to hit the waves again..sun sand and surf...roll on Summer..🐳🐳🐳

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.89  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.87    2 weeks ago
I commented on what you wrote

Um-hum...Let me leave you with this TiG. There was a book written in 1962, that is still very relevant today, entitled Capitalism and Freedom.

I highly recommend it for you and our readers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.90  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.89    2 weeks ago

That implies I am against capitalism or that I do not understand capitalism.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4  Drinker of the Wry    3 weeks ago

Absolutely, a proud member.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago

While I disagree that America "hates women", I do understand where she is likely coming from. The fact is America has basically been run by white Christian men since our founding and we've never had a female President. This is mostly due to indoctrinated headship beliefs where traditionally many religious believers dismiss women as viable candidates for positions of political power, even by many women themselves.

Today, this general acceptance that women should "stay in their place" is mostly only shared by conservative Republicans.

" When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ."

Why Republican Women Don't Want A Female President | HuffPost Latest News

" I still remember hearing men joke, time and again, “Can you imagine giving a woman our nuclear codes? They’d want to blow up Russia every time they got their periods!”.

"I often feel that I can talk about my anger and pain over the many times males were enabled and allowed to   do whatever they wanted to my body, but does it really matter?   Does anyone really hear this, and more importantly, does it change anything?   Or how about how many times I was demeaned, belittled, criticized, or publicly humiliated because I demonstrated feminine qualities at work instead of masculine? Or how about the many times that   I was paid less than my male coworkers, even when I had more experience and education? Or…

There are countless stories like this. Countless times I have felt powerless, afraid, and unheard.   How can I express what that feels like?   And to white, Christian, hetero, cisgender men, really,   how can I impart the weight of this?"

" I only long for a world in which we value the feminine as much as we value the masculine. Where women aren’t constantly judged for their sexuality. Where we make as much money as our male counterparts. Where our leadership is valued."

No, We Don’t Really Want a Female President | by Yael Wolfe | An Injustice! (aninjusticemag.com)

And of course due to the indoctrinated white, Christian, hetero, cisgender conservatives we have moved backwards when it comes to women's rights as they were stripped of their right to privacy and bodily autonomy by those conservatives who demanded their right to force their indoctrinated religious beliefs and misogyny on others.

So, while I may not think it's "hate", there is certainly a culture of gender bigotry alive and well mostly among religious conservatives that continues to hold our nation back true gender equality which is what I believe AOC is referring to.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    3 weeks ago
While I disagree that America "hates women", I do understand where she is likely coming from.

I don't understand why she would even be thinking or speculating on becoming the President.  At 33 years of age, her only adult experience is college, tending bar and not yet 4 years as a Congresswoman. Maybe it's just the hubris and narcissism that so many politicians have

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    3 weeks ago

Don't forget the parties in Westchester.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    3 weeks ago
At 33 years of age, her only adult experience is college, tending bar and not yet 4 years as a Congresswoman.

Seems she has a far better understanding of your average American than a silver spoon born conman and reality TV show host who's never done an honest day's work in his life with two dozen accusations of sexual misconduct and six bankruptcies.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

Wow.  It took longer than I thought but there it is - the obligatory Trump comment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

I thought he was talking about John Fetterman

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
Seems she has a far better understanding of your average American than a silver spoon born conman and reality TV show host

Well, looky there!

You ALMOST made it through a post without dragging Trump into something that has nothing to do with him!

Do you get paid by how many times you can manage to go off-track or something?

Or is it that Trump is ALL you can manage to bleat about, no matter the fucking topic?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

It is almost like they have no control over what the fuck they type--it always, always comes out "TRUMP".

What a very, very sad way to go through life--consumed in every waking moment with a man you hate. Pitiful, really.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

Maybe Jim Bakker as well?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.6    3 weeks ago

It's pretty childish actually.  I guess it would mean more if there were more to it than their hurt feelings.  I never thought this many so called "adults" would hold such an unfounded grudge like this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.8    3 weeks ago

AOC plays the 'victim' quite well, she is one hell of an actress.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    3 weeks ago

Unfortunately it just shows her as needy and immature.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

She actually has a lot in common with him, both with hubris, hyperbole and narcissism.  I don't think that either are fit for political office.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
the obligatory Trump comment.

They love to play whatabout...l

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.10    3 weeks ago

Let us be fair. She has thus far achieved one thing: She kept 25,000 jobs out of NYC.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
It took longer than I thought but there it is - the obligatory Trump comment.

I thought it was a given that "the hubris and narcissism that so many politicians have" was already a reference to the Tangerine Tyrant.

It is pretty funny to see how many conservative carp are jumping in outrage at this AOC comment. Lots of open gaping mouths gasping for air but not actually saying anything worth listening to. But hey, even brain damaged bigots are entitled to their moronic chauvinistic opinions.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.14    3 weeks ago

AOC is very good looking, young, intelligent , and with a lot of charisma. They fear her. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    3 weeks ago

Some just CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT TRUMP.

I get it, there is no defense for idiots like AOC.

And fools seem to think that no one cares about ANYTHING else in the world besides TRMP!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

See how the alleged conservatives fear hard working and intelligent Democrat women?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    3 weeks ago

I thought hat's to be expected from somebody of her "caliber".

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
I thought it was a given

You didn't think.  You went straight with the bullshit.  Nothing in this seed had a goddamn thing to do with the former POTUS.  But you HAD to bring him in.  And for what?  A chance to say "look at me"?  

And you expect to be taken seriously.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

Anything to deflect from the failures within their ranks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.19    3 weeks ago
You didn't think.  You went straight with the bullshit.  Nothing in this seed had a goddamn thing to do with the former POTUS.  But you HAD to bring him in.  And for what?  A chance to say "look at me"?

I can not even IMAGINE living with such a one-track mind. 

Personally, I just won't allow anyone to live rent-free in my head like that.

And you expect to be taken seriously.  

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.20    3 weeks ago
Anything to deflect from the failures within their ranks

According to some of the liberal 'logic' here (and I use that term VERY loosely!), if you talk about someone, you must fear them, so Trump must be the single-most feared person on the planet!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.17    3 weeks ago
See how the alleged conservatives fear hard working and intelligent Democrat women?  

Considering just 16% of Republican men would vote for ANY woman for President, at least they are equal opportunity offenders since they don't just discriminate against Democratic women.

Basically, all these conservative males, not a lady amongst them here it seems, are clearly threatened by the revelation that many if not most conservative Republicans are in fact bigoted misogynists who don't necessarily "hate" women, they just don't trust them and sure as hell wouldn't vote a woman into any position of power above them. This entire seed is dripping with thinly veiled misogyny.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.23    3 weeks ago

Please look up the word 'misogynist' and start trying to use it properly.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.25  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.24    3 weeks ago
Please look up the word 'misogynist' and start trying to use it properly.

Not that I had to look it up, but for your benefit so you can understand what the word means and that I've been using it exactly as intended, here is the definition:

Misogynist: noun - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

I think the fact that 84% of Republicans wouldn't vote for a woman for President no matter who she was and what party she was in simply because she was a female is the very definition of "strongly prejudiced against women".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.25    3 weeks ago
Misogynist: noun - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

Very good!

Now, please try to use it properly in a coherent sentence.

Some people know that not voting for a woman based on her policies is no different than not voting for a man based on his policies,

Political neophytes will have trouble with that until they wise up--if ever they do!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.25    3 weeks ago

Its humorous to watch people AOC could intellectually run rings around try to comment on her intelligence. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.28  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.22    3 weeks ago

I've always asserted that the Democrats and the left fear him.  And for the very reason you stated.  Why else would they STILL be going after him.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.21    3 weeks ago
I can not even IMAGINE living with such a one-track mind. 

How does it work?  On an article about a Democrat, you went straight to Trump.  EVERY time there is an article about a Democrat you all do this.  

Personally, I just won't allow anyone to live rent-free in my head like that.

Too late.  He's there.  That much is evident.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.26    3 weeks ago
Now, please try to use it properly in a coherent sentence.

Ok.  Now you are asking too much.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.31  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.26    3 weeks ago
Some people know that not voting for a woman based on her policies is no different than not voting for a man based on his policies,

Yet that wasn't the case with those Republicans I was talking about.

"When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ."

Having 84% of Republican men refusing support for ANY female for President has absolutely ZERO to do with "policy", its pure prejudice against women.

There is no need for rightwing conservatives to pretend that what upsets them about AOC is her policies, they are upset by every Democrats policies. But what really gets these conservatives panties in a twist about AOC is the fact that she is a young vocal female who has been calling out the prevalent misogyny among conservatives which clearly has pissed off those 'good ol' boys' who long for the days when they and other white male Christians ran everything and women were only allowed to be seen and not heard.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.30    3 weeks ago
Now you are asking too much. 

I know, I know.

Sigh.

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.31    3 weeks ago
"When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ." Having 84% of Republican men refusing support for ANY female for President has absolutely ZERO to do with "policy", its pure prejudice against women.

Let me explain to you what that actually says.

The question was NOT "Would you vote for a woman?", so your whole premise is shot all to hell and back before you started because you didn't even understand what the fuck you read.

Hoping for something just for the sake of it happening regardless of consequences is stupidity at its lowest.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.33    3 weeks ago
The question was NOT "Would you vote for a woman?"

Ah, I see, because the 84% of Republican men who said they "hope" there wouldn't be a female President would of course vote for one if given the option. /s

your whole premise is shot all to hell

Nope.

Hoping for something just for the sake of it happening regardless of consequences is stupidity at its lowest.

As is believing that those who hope there won't be a female President would turn around and vote for one. Your bizarre desperate illogical retort would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.34    3 weeks ago

 because the 84% of Republican men who said they "hope" there wouldn't be a female President would of course vote for one if given the option. /s

SO in your would, the majority of Democratic men who said the same didn't vote  for Hillary Clinton right?

Lol.   

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.36  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.34    3 weeks ago
Ah, I see, because the 84% of Republican men who said they "hope" there wouldn't be a female President would of course vote for one if given the option

These men wouldn't vote for AOC if she was a man either.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.34    3 weeks ago

Hope in one hand and shit in the other.

Let me know which one fills up first.

Spinning this because you don't like someone is silly.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.38  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    3 weeks ago
Intelligent?
  • “I represent more, or just as many or more, people than Joe Manchin does.”
  • "Bernie Sanders has “never taken corporate lobbyist money in his entire political career."
  • In her defeat of Republican Rep. Karen Handel, Democrat Lucy McBath "was outspent 5-1."
  • "Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion budget increase, which they didn’t even ask for."
  • Facts are facts, America. We should care about getting things right. Yet standards of who gets fact-checked, how often + why are unclear.  This is where false equivalency+bias creeps in, allowing climate deniers to be put on par w/scientists, for example.
  • "In Texas, Republicans passed a law allowing rapists to sue their victims for getting an abortion."
 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.1.39  arkpdx  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
 six bankruptcies

And not one was personal bankruptcy. Business fail and file bankruptcy all the time. It is part of doing business 

accusations of sexual misconduct 

Accusations are meaningless. You could be accused of child abuse to and pedophilia but that would not make it so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
It took longer than I thought but there it is - the obligatory Trump comment.

But we ALWAYS know it is coming, and I can usually guess who it will come from.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.41  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.39    3 weeks ago
Business fail and file bankruptcy all the time. It is part of doing business 

All part of doing business for those whose intent was to scrape as much money as they can from a business deal and then slit its throat so they don't have to pay back the workers that were hired to create the business. Trying to pretend dirty Donald is a 'good businessman' is like trying to pretend shit doesn't stink.

Bankruptcy is a last resort for those who have done everything they can to make a profitable business but through some terrible circumstances were unable to fulfil their goal. The tangerine lying sack of shit who skimmed off millions from businesses then ran them into the ground so he wouldn't have to pay the workers isn't 'business', it's straight up fraud. Just because some fat fuck scum bag works the system to make profit while others suffer isn't technically "illegal" doesn't mean he isn't a fat fuck scum bag.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.41    2 weeks ago

Please relate your terrible tales of woe about Trump and how it correlates to the TOPIC here, which is not Trump, btfw.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.2  arkpdx  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    3 weeks ago
we've never had a female President 

Name a woman that has run for president that has been worthy of the job. 

 
 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.2.1  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @5.2    3 weeks ago

“Name a woman that has run for president that has been worthy of the job.”

Wow.

Given the standing processes effectively eliminating them from consideration, it is no surprise. Name, using more than one finger, regardless of party affiliation, just which ‘males’ met the demands of the office in the last half century. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  afrayedknot @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, George W Bush, Donald J. Trump and even thought I didn't care for them or their policies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. 

You will notice that I excluded the current occupant of the white house since he is the most incompetent person as president since James Earl Carter. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  arkpdx @5.2.2    3 weeks ago
Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, George W Bush, Donald J. Trump and even thought I didn't care for them or their policies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. 

You and I are going to disagree about Trump, but the rest of that list is pretty sound.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    3 weeks ago
Today, this general acceptance that women should "stay in their place" is mostly only shared by conservative Republicans.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condolezza Rice, Kristi Noem, and hundreds of others are laughing their asses off at this.

When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ."

In a study conducted in 2014, where the most likely female presidents would have been Hillary or Liz Warren.

The study itself says:

To be sure, for many Republicans this view may be more about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency than about a major milestone for women, a perspective that likely influences the way they respond to this “hypothetical” question.

But let's don't mention that.   You go back to parroting whatever Huffy Post wants you to believe.

 
 
 
Zombie Ice
Freshman Silent
6  Zombie Ice    3 weeks ago

Republicans are just mad they can't find a congress person hot enough to twerk that voters want to bang.  Instead they have Matt Gaetz and the only ones that want to bang him are other white conservative dudes. Might I suggest some Truvada if you are one of these.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Zombie Ice @6    3 weeks ago
Republicans are just mad they can't find a congress person hot enough to twerk that voters want to bang. 

Well, Republicans all want to bang AOC, she knows!

LMMFAO!!!

Poor girl, delusional and stupid is no way to go through life!

 
 
 
Zombie Ice
Freshman Silent
6.1.1  Zombie Ice  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    3 weeks ago

I heard she's a size queen, [removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Zombie Ice @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
I heard she's a size queen

You hear interesting stuff!

What size is her preferred one?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Zombie Ice @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
that probably takes you ought of the equation.

Have you been stalking me?

I am flattered!

But, not interested, sorry, find your thrills elsewhere!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.1.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Zombie Ice @6    3 weeks ago
Instead they have Matt Gaetz and the only ones that want to bang him are other white conservative dudes.

They'd clearly much rather vote for the sexual predators and rapists than the victims and the raped.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    3 weeks ago
They'd clearly much rather vote for the sexual predators and rapists than the victims and the raped.

Maybe some of us are just smart enough to realize that being a victim of rape does not qualify anyone in any way to hold office.

 
 
 
Zombie Ice
Freshman Silent
6.2.2  Zombie Ice  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    3 weeks ago

Most of them have shrines of Dennis Hastert and Larry Craig in their home somewhere.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Zombie Ice @6.2.2    3 weeks ago
Most of them have shrines of Dennis Hastert and Larry Craig in their home somewhere.

Really? How many have you seen?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
6.2.4  arkpdx  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    3 weeks ago
They'd clearly much rather vote for the sexual predators and rapists 

You mean like Bill Clinton?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
6.2.5  arkpdx  replied to  Zombie Ice @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

Why would they do that? Both men resigned from their offices when the charges came to light and neither one ever ran for office again and no one ever voted for them again. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Zombie Ice @6    3 weeks ago
Republicans are just mad they can't find a congress person hot enough to twerk 

Being a twerking hottie is criteria for Congress? Imagine that! AOC lowered the bar with her dancer/waitress/barista/skin-tight clothes "credentials".

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
7  Hallux    3 weeks ago

This article is basically the Reader's Digest version of the original GQ offering that came with the title ' AOC's Fight for the Future'. Although the author refrained from spurious attacks. the seeder and his followers to no surprise did not.

The original article without the clickbait title can be found here:

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @7    3 weeks ago

I doubt I'll be around to see it, because it won be anytime soon, but I do fully expect her to be a leading candidate for the presidency one day. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
7.1.1  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    3 weeks ago

That's entirely possible, she does not appear to be adverse to learning.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8  Drinker of the Wry    3 weeks ago
I do fully expect her to be a leading candidate for the presidency one day. 

With her ambition, work ethic and talent, how could anyone doubt that one day, she could be a contender.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
8.1  squiggy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    3 weeks ago

There. That’s how you stay on the board.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9  Drinker of the Wry    3 weeks ago
I like bacon...

And pork belly, pulled pork, spare ribs, ham, ham hocks, ham salad, loin roast, chops, sausages, banh mi, chile verde, sate babi, moo manao, fat back, kalua pig, suckling pig, saumagen, schwenkbraten, kassler, moo shu, vindaloo, carnitas, spam and so much more.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

If she wants to be prez, all she needs to do is present a more pleasing package. Flash a little cleavage. Show a little more leg. Wink and smile more. If she can do that, I predict a landslide victory.

I’m only half joking. I do believe it would work. It’s sad, but it would work.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
10.1  squiggy  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 weeks ago

It worked in Finland.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 weeks ago

from the Mexican Delicacy calling me misogynistic the other day, thats funny

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2    3 weeks ago

Guess the whole thing went over your head.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.1    3 weeks ago

yea , i guess i ducked. So it is ok for Tacos' to joke about the looks of AOC, but not for me to joke about Ann.  Sorry, but i, as well as yourself can say whatever under the terms here, and we should BOTH be able to joke about people, as long as not attacking other members imho, but, perhaps you are just too high, and i too short, as over my head I B leave is what you said. Perhaps i need heels. Mabe Ann or AOC could help me pick some out.... 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2.2    3 weeks ago

There is a difference between joking about someone and attacking them on the basis of sex. Also, I said I was only half joking. It’s a fact that people get elected based on their looks. My comment was about that. Yours was a straight up mean-spirited joke about her looking like a man and served no purpose other than to tear her down for not being feminine enough for you.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10.2.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.3    3 weeks ago
said I was only half joking.

Wow, how about i was Fully Joking, not Half joking, so claim your superiority over someone else. I don't insult, or convey hostility to others, whence i am serious, and if I take a joke too far, i will gladly walk it back, leave, or apologize dependent that which will properly rectify the situation. I am not a PC correct person, never was, never will be, i am better at insulting myself than most others, and will, without a cause or mercy, cause i know my weaknesses. So just take a xchill pill to lower your temperature, I make off color jokes, but jokingly, and love to battle via insults, especially face to face. I do not particularly like Ann Coulter, as she has shown to be a vicious bitch on occasion, i think her skin is thick enough to handle my joking insults, and if not, FCK HER ! but , just joking Ann, as i am heterosexual,

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2.4    2 weeks ago
Wow, how about i was Fully Joking, not Half joking, so claim your superiority over someone else. I don't insult, or convey hostility to others

Not the point.

So just take a xchill pill to lower your temperature

You’re the one who is angrily debating an exchange from another seed to attack me in this seed. So if anyone needs to chill, it’s you.

I’ll explain it further since you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference, so far. Here, in a seed about whether or not AOC can get elected president, I suggested that a strategy for her would be to soften her image in a way that might be sexually appealing to a bigger part of the electorate because that’s a real thing in politics. 

By contrast, in a seed about Ann Coulter’s political views, you attacked her on the grounds that you think she looks mannish because she allegedly has an Adam’s apple - which, even if true, is not something she could do anything about, and has zero to do with the seed itself.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.5    2 weeks ago
By contrast, in a seed about Ann Coulter’s political views

Maybe that seed, was an ADAMS APPLE SEED !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
11  magicschoolbusdropout    3 weeks ago

"One major trauma that a lot of survivors of assault deal with is a struggle with being believed," she said. 

I wonder if people don't believe ANYTHING she says, Because she says Shit Crap like this:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it's unlikely she could ever be elected president of the United States — because so many people in America "hate women" and "would never let that happen."

Hmmmmmm........ Could Be ?

256

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
11.1  squiggy  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @11    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2  Texan1211  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @11    3 weeks ago

AOC opens mouth and stupid falls out.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2    3 weeks ago

She oughta chew, a little more thoroughly no.... ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.2.1    2 weeks ago
She oughta chew, a little more thoroughly no.... ?

that wouldn't prevent the stupid from falling out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12  TᵢG    3 weeks ago
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it's unlikely she could ever be elected president of the United States — because so many people in America "hate women" and "would never let that happen."

Hillary Clinton was almost elected PotUS.   If she can get that far there is no question that a woman PotUS is in our near future.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
12.1  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @12    3 weeks ago
Hillary Clinton was almost elected PotUS. 

Thank God that "almost" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons. This country sure dodged a bullet that day!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @12.1    3 weeks ago

artworks-000274488359-x2zsbm-t500x500.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif That's where they usually go TiG!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
12.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  arkpdx @12.1    3 weeks ago

And she lost to the new guy.  TWICE.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
12.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

You missed again 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
12.2  Jasper2529  replied to  TᵢG @12    3 weeks ago
Hillary Clinton was almost elected PotUS. 

That's as silly as a child who is 10 years, 7 months saying that he's almost 11. "A miss is as good as a mile", "close, but no cigar" ...  i.e., a failure remains a failure.

If she can get that far there is no question that a woman PotUS is in our near future.

I hope it will happen one day, and I hope I live to see it. But, the woman candidate needs to not carry as much negative, radical baggage as Hillary and AOC have. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jasper2529 @12.2    3 weeks ago
That's as silly as a child who is 10 years, 7 months saying that he's almost 11. "A miss is as good as a mile", "close, but no cigar" ...  i.e., a failure remains a failure.

You missed my point too.  Here, let me spell it out for you:

  1. Hillary, a woman, was nominated by a major party as candidate for PotUS.   That broke new ground and established a precedent that makes it easier for other women to be nominated by their party.
  2. Hillary, a woman, won the popular vote for PotUS.   She lost the election because she did not win the electoral vote.   Winning the popular vote has also established new ground and has further demonstrated that a woman in the USA could indeed be elected PotUS.
  3. Hillary was a horrible candidate;  so if she could get this close to the presidency, it would seem logical that other, better suited, candidates would be able to do as well and, indeed, go one step further and win the electoral vote.

There was nothing silly about what I wrote. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
12.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.1    3 weeks ago

Watching you try to coax conservatives into understanding the easily understood point you made above is like watching someone trying to teach a rock to roll over...

"Come on, you can do it Rocky, you can do it... Will it help if I glue some googly eyes to you?"...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
12.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.1    3 weeks ago
other, better suited, candidates would be able to do as well 

Those candidates do not include AOC in any way shape or form. 

Hillary, a woman 

That debatable 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.3    3 weeks ago
Those candidates do not include AOC in any way shape or form. 

I agree given her current age, experience, and positions.

That debatable 

What is the point of making such a juvenile (and witless) comment?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
12.2.5  Jasper2529  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.1    3 weeks ago
You missed my point too.  Here, let me spell it out for you:

There was no reason to post such a patronizing, condescending comment, TiG. Other people might want or need your tutorials, but I do not.

You and others might want to spend some time learning about over a century of Hillary's predecessors who laid the groundwork for her.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
12.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.1    3 weeks ago
That broke new ground and established a precedent that makes it easier for other women to be nominated by their party.

And here we go with the misinformation.  Clinton didn't "break any new ground".  That ground was broken in 1872 with the nomination of Victoria Claflin Woodhull.  

.

FFS do some goddamn research.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @12.2.5    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.4    3 weeks ago

That is all he has TiG.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jasper2529 @12.2.5    3 weeks ago
There was no reason to post such a patronizing, condescending comment, TiG.

Your reply was faux obtuseness.   My comment was crystal clear yet you chose to recast it into something stupid that you could ridicule.

Engage in faux obtuseness and I will respond accordingly.   Pretend to not understand clear English and I will speak to you according to your pretense.

You and others might want to spend some time learning about over a century of Hillary's predecessors who laid the groundwork for her.

Why?    Is this your latest strawman where you implicitly claim that I was arguing that Hillary is the only woman who has broken barriers for women?


Do you consider any of what I listed to be incorrect?:

  1. Hillary, a woman, was nominated by a major party as candidate for PotUS.   That broke new ground and established a precedent that makes it easier for other women to be nominated by their party.
  2. Hillary, a woman, won the popular vote for PotUS.   She lost the election because she did not win the electoral vote.   Winning the popular vote has also established new ground and has further demonstrated that a woman in the USA could indeed be elected PotUS.
  3. Hillary was a horrible candidate;  so if she could get this close to the presidency, it would seem logical that other, better suited, candidates would be able to do as well and, indeed, go one step further and win the electoral vote.

If so, offer a thoughtful rebuttal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.6    3 weeks ago
And here we go with the misinformation.  Clinton didn't "break any new ground".  That ground was broken in 1872 with the nomination of Victoria Claflin Woodhull.  

Do you understand what is meant by the term " major party"?   Here is what I wrote:

TiG @12.2.1 Hillary, a woman, was nominated by a major party as candidate for PotUS.   

Woodhull was not the nominee of a major party;  she was the nominee of a recently formed "Equal Rights Party".   Do you somehow think that the "Equal Rights Party" was a major party?   Do you also think that the Green party is a major party?    The USA currently has two major parties:  Democrats and Republicans.

FFS do some goddamn research.

Yet again, you fail to read, pen an over-the-top snarky comment, and end up looking foolish.

For your future comments, here is the definition of " major party ":   

"a political party with enough electoral strength to periodically gain control of the government or to effectively oppose the party in power."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.2.2    3 weeks ago

Case in point:   @12.2.10

 
 

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
JohnRussell
Gazoo
arkpdx


22 visitors