Author Topic: AOC thread  (Read 6260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30482
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2019, 09:20:05 AM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?

I actually don't see this as being the case. I could be entirely wrong in my thinking, but Fox News 100% responsible for her rise. She's a young, non-white, democratic, millennial woman that understands the hardships people are going through. She's getting young people excited and isn't afraid to call out bullshit within our system of government or the shenanigans pulled by our largest corporations. She's a direct threat to the organizations that prop up Sinclair, and Fox News wasted no time trying to shut that down. Hillary Clinton wasn't getting Fox New's base foaming at the mouth like she was two years ago, so AOC became the new dog whistle that would generate ad clicks. And then, in true "us vs them" fashion, all the other media outlets had to remind their viewers why Fox News is the enemy, and in turn started defending AOC for no reason other than to counter the bad people's opinion. I honestly don't think AOC acts much differently than anyone else in congress. Sure, she's got a different presence in the digital realm, but that's just due to her age.

I agree that Fox News has a large hand in this, but 100%? Nah. I cannot remember which late night talk show she went on, but it was right after she got elected, and that was long before Fox became obsessed with her.  How many politicians go on late night talk shows right after getting elected?  She has gone out of her way to get noticed.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, but let's call it what it is.

Also, I think Fox is going after her for different reasons than the right went after Hillary.  For as corrupt as Hillary was/is, she knew she was talking about and was a real threat. AOC is so extreme that by talking about her non-stop, Fox can then skew it to make it seem like all Democrats want to do x, y and z, with the hope that it influences voters in 2020 and get Trump re-elected.

I do think the constant shots at her for being a former bartender are really stupid.  And I am not saying that because I used to tend bar; it makes it sound like some former bartender can't possibly know what she is talking about, when in reality I'll bet many other current representatives did similar-type jobs before getting into politics.   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2019, 09:42:15 AM »
That's my take too. AOC is largely a myth that's been created by her opponents, in my opinion.
That's how I've seen it, too. However I think the motivation is twofold. Certainly it's grist for the conservatives. She's the best badguy they could hope for. At the same time they're giving her publicity which is making her a star in the democratic party. Notice that the Pelosis and Reeds don't want anything to do with her. I really doubt anybody on Earth wants FOX to shut up about her more than those two. It's a win-win for them. Undermine the democrats and rile up the conservatives.

Let's assume that you both (and Chino) are right; you're still only covering half the story (well, el Barto is at 60% or so, because he noted the Establishment left's reaction).   She's all those things, but it's not like the non-Fox, non-liberal Establishment is ignoring her.  She's very much making the rounds and being egged on/abetted/encouraged - whatever word you want to use - by those that want/need what they see as an "antidote" to Trump.  And she's not showing an ounce of humility, an ounce of self-awareness, an ounce of culpability in her role in the steaming shit pile that is American politics circa 2019. 

Look, if nothing else, if you're going to rake Trump's "minions" over the coals, then you have to do the same here. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22371
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2019, 10:45:40 AM »
From what I've seen they're covering her about as much as they should. What they're not doing is looking for every possibility to plaster her face front and center and call attention to every single thing she says or does. They're reporting on her but they're not making her a focal point of political news. FOX is. Top two stories on FOX.com right now:

Fellow New York Dem blasts AOC’s ‘socialist’ lie, dares her to recruit a primary opponent
Ocasio-Cortez likens GOP to 'Exorcist' girl, accuses border agents of drugging kids in marathon Instagram session


edit: She's not currently on CNN.com at all, and MSNBC has a New Green Deal feature at the very bottom of the page.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2019, 11:59:18 AM »
And she's not showing an ounce of humility, an ounce of self-awareness, an ounce of culpability in her role in the steaming shit pile that is American politics circa 2019. 

Which is what exactly?

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2019, 07:49:09 PM »
And she's not showing an ounce of humility, an ounce of self-awareness, an ounce of culpability in her role in the steaming shit pile that is American politics circa 2019. 

Which is what exactly?

I've written about it enough here.  She's playing the "fake news" card, she's putting forth nonsense proposals that are intended to inspire the base and piss off the "other side", which is problematic on two levels:  it doesn't put the people first, and it just serves to increase the divide.  There's about 15 other things, but that's the main part.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2019, 12:32:15 AM »
Quote
She's playing the "fake news" card

A cursory search reveals she made some comments regarding conservative groups spreading disinformation about her. Which is true. They are. I don't think is in any way comparable to how top level conservatives use the term to dismiss any factual reporting they don't like as fake.

Quote
she's putting forth nonsense proposals that are intended to inspire the base and piss off the "other side", which is problematic on two levels:  it doesn't put the people first, and it just serves to increase the divide.

For example? Most of the policies I've seen by her would be classed as relatively centrist by european standards.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2019, 08:03:53 AM »
Quote
She's playing the "fake news" card

A cursory search reveals she made some comments regarding conservative groups spreading disinformation about her. Which is true. They are. I don't think is in any way comparable to how top level conservatives use the term to dismiss any factual reporting they don't like as fake.

Quote
she's putting forth nonsense proposals that are intended to inspire the base and piss off the "other side", which is problematic on two levels:  it doesn't put the people first, and it just serves to increase the divide.

For example? Most of the policies I've seen by her would be classed as relatively centrist by european standards.

Go back and read most of my posts on this; I've addressed all this before.  If you're on her side, it makes perfect sense, even the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".    If you're not, she's the socialist devil because, among other things, the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".   YAWN.  American politics as usual, and thus, my point made.   She's doing zero to address the REAL problem here, and doubling down on the moralizing and identity politics emphases that got us Trump in the first place.   

And we don't live in Europe.  For 275 reasons (at least), what plays in Europe can't or won't play here. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22371
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2019, 08:06:16 AM »
Quote
She's playing the "fake news" card

A cursory search reveals she made some comments regarding conservative groups spreading disinformation about her. Which is true. They are. I don't think is in any way comparable to how top level conservatives use the term to dismiss any factual reporting they don't like as fake.

Quote
she's putting forth nonsense proposals that are intended to inspire the base and piss off the "other side", which is problematic on two levels:  it doesn't put the people first, and it just serves to increase the divide.

For example? Most of the policies I've seen by her would be classed as relatively centrist by european standards.
But, she's gonna ban airplanes! :splodearms:
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12062
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2019, 08:40:33 AM »
And cows, don't forget about the cows :lol
Photobucket sucks.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2019, 09:22:02 AM »
You don't even have to go that far.  Those quippy replies minimize that there are actual, legitimate criticisms of the "Green New Deal", and neglects that many in her own party - that feel just as strongly about climate change - don't view it as a credible response to that danger.   

If she's as "in tune" with the needs of this country as her supporters claim her to be, if she's as SMART as her supporters claim her to be, and if she's the breath of fresh air her supporters claim her to be, then it's not at all unrealistic or unfair to expect her to recognize the failures of the past, to recognize the obstacles that her opponents have to programs and solutions presented in the past, and to ask her to ADDRESS those, rather than doubling or even tripling down on the very points that created the obstacles in the first place.   

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22371
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2019, 09:37:04 AM »
You don't even have to go that far.  Those quippy replies minimize that there are actual, legitimate criticisms of the "Green New Deal", and neglects that many in her own party - that feel just as strongly about climate change - don't view it as a credible response to that danger.   

If she's as "in tune" with the needs of this country as her supporters claim her to be, if she's as SMART as her supporters claim her to be, and if she's the breath of fresh air her supporters claim her to be, then it's not at all unrealistic or unfair to expect her to recognize the failures of the past, to recognize the obstacles that her opponents have to programs and solutions presented in the past, and to ask her to ADDRESS those, rather than doubling or even tripling down on the very points that created the obstacles in the first place.
I agree. The thing is that those are the details republicans are in a twist over. GOP congressmen aren't on the radio talking about using the environment as a means to promote a social agenda. They're talking about the cows and the airplanes.

I pointed this out to you a month or so ago and suggested you read the full text. I think you did based on something you mentioned earlier. In that post I said that there's a ton that neither of us would like, related to the social engineering aspect. There's also a ton that we'd both agree whole heartedly on. Yet on a national level we're not allowed to go there because WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE COWS! This should be your bitch, dude. I think we could be using it as a starting outline, as I suspect do you, and separating the wheat from the chaff. FOX and it's brainwashed drones think we should be ridiculing it based on bogus, sensationalist notions.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22172
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2019, 09:56:56 AM »
FOX and it's brainwashed drones think we should be ridiculing it based on bogus, sensationalist notions.

Ratings cha ching

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21311
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2019, 10:07:32 AM »
You don't even have to go that far.  Those quippy replies minimize that there are actual, legitimate criticisms of the "Green New Deal", and neglects that many in her own party - that feel just as strongly about climate change - don't view it as a credible response to that danger.   

If she's as "in tune" with the needs of this country as her supporters claim her to be, if she's as SMART as her supporters claim her to be, and if she's the breath of fresh air her supporters claim her to be, then it's not at all unrealistic or unfair to expect her to recognize the failures of the past, to recognize the obstacles that her opponents have to programs and solutions presented in the past, and to ask her to ADDRESS those, rather than doubling or even tripling down on the very points that created the obstacles in the first place.
I agree. The thing is that those are the details republicans are in a twist over. GOP congressmen aren't on the radio talking about using the environment as a means to promote a social agenda. They're talking about the cows and the airplanes.

I pointed this out to you a month or so ago and suggested you read the full text. I think you did based on something you mentioned earlier. In that post I said that there's a ton that neither of us would like, related to the social engineering aspect. There's also a ton that we'd both agree whole heartedly on. Yet on a national level we're not allowed to go there because WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE COWS! This should be your bitch, dude. I think we could be using it as a starting outline, as I suspect do you, and separating the wheat from the chaff. FOX and it's brainwashed drones think we should be ridiculing it based on bogus, sensationalist notions.

“So it’s official, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a moron, and nasty, and more self righteous than any televangelist who ever preached a sermon on cable access. She’s not impressive, she’s awful" - Tucker Carlson

"Chris Hayes is what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country: apologetic, bespectacled, and deeply, deeply concerned about global warming and the patriarchal systems that cause it. Unless you do exactly what Dr. Ocasio-Cortez says, the entire human race has only 12 years to live.” - Tucker Carlson


Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2019, 10:10:27 AM »
Go back and read most of my posts on this; I've addressed all this before.

With all due respect, I did, and the most I gleaned from the posts you made in this thread is that she is bad for having emotions and strong moral convictions, and making herself noticed. You haven't discussed a single policy of hers and why they are nonsense/unworkable in this thread at least, and you'll have to forgive me if I don't have time to go over your entire post history to glean some insight, so an executive summary or single example would be nice.

Quote
If you're on her side, it makes perfect sense, even the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".  If you're not, she's the socialist devil because, among other things, the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".   YAWN.  American politics as usual, and thus, my point made.

That different people have different views on things? Otherwise I have no f-ing clue you think you are making.

Quote
She's doing zero to address the REAL problem here

Again, which is what exactly?

Quote
and doubling down on the moralizing and identity politics emphases that got us Trump in the first place.

Indeed, I mean who wants a leader who has morals and recognizes different groups of people have different needs and different experiences of social and governmental systems? In any case, as far as reasons for Trump's election go, I think modern leftist identity politics is pretty far down the list.

Quote
And we don't live in Europe.  For 275 reasons (at least), what plays in Europe can't or won't play here. 

Go on then. What are they?

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2019, 10:18:24 AM »
You don't even have to go that far.  Those quippy replies minimize that there are actual, legitimate criticisms of the "Green New Deal", and neglects that many in her own party - that feel just as strongly about climate change - don't view it as a credible response to that danger.   

If she's as "in tune" with the needs of this country as her supporters claim her to be, if she's as SMART as her supporters claim her to be, and if she's the breath of fresh air her supporters claim her to be, then it's not at all unrealistic or unfair to expect her to recognize the failures of the past, to recognize the obstacles that her opponents have to programs and solutions presented in the past, and to ask her to ADDRESS those, rather than doubling or even tripling down on the very points that created the obstacles in the first place.
I agree. The thing is that those are the details republicans are in a twist over. GOP congressmen aren't on the radio talking about using the environment as a means to promote a social agenda. They're talking about the cows and the airplanes.

I pointed this out to you a month or so ago and suggested you read the full text. I think you did based on something you mentioned earlier. In that post I said that there's a ton that neither of us would like, related to the social engineering aspect. There's also a ton that we'd both agree whole heartedly on. Yet on a national level we're not allowed to go there because WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE COWS! This should be your bitch, dude. I think we could be using it as a starting outline, as I suspect do you, and separating the wheat from the chaff. FOX and it's brainwashed drones think we should be ridiculing it based on bogus, sensationalist notions.

I don't disagree, if we're talking SPECIFICALLY about the issue, and more specifically, about the issue as presented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.   I'm talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez GENERALLY.   If you (collective, not you el Barto) want to talk climate change, I'm there with you, and you're right, there is a LOT to start from there (excluding, in their entirety, what you rightfully call the "social engineering" aspect).  But we're not.   We're talking about HER.  Her approach, her appeal, her shortfalls, and the reaction she instigates.   I'm fundamentally opposed to the notion of "FOX and it's brainwashed drones", so I'm not going to address that again (I've written novels on that here and elsewhere, and while there are credible exceptions to my points - that I concede - I think that in the context of any one candidate, we cannot and should not talk about "FOX and it's brainwashed drones" without some acknowledgement of the Kool-aid being pimped by the liberal media establishment or wahtever they're being called these days by the Carlson's of the world).   

I get that you (collective) don't have to agree with me - I'd sort of question if you all did, and I appreciate the pushback, since it "sharpens my pencil" if you get my metaphor - but you do have to understand where I'm coming from for it all to make sense.  I'm not suggesting I believe I'm 100% right on all this, but I take great pains (read: I take long hot showers during which I think about this shit) to make my position comprehensive and consistent.  I think we have to - at times - talk about some of this in vacuum, else it becomes too unwieldly, but we have to spellcheck it in the broader context. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30482
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2019, 10:34:28 AM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?


I guess not...

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2019, 10:46:58 AM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?


I guess not...

Apologies. I would say that Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren would definitely come under the heading of "Young republicans with large social media presence and common appearances on cable TV." If you were after an actual representative I would struggle to name them, if only because the average age of a republican representative is quite high.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2019, 10:49:32 AM »
Go back and read most of my posts on this; I've addressed all this before.

With all due respect, I did, and the most I gleaned from the posts you made in this thread is that she is bad for having emotions and strong moral convictions, and making herself noticed. You haven't discussed a single policy of hers and why they are nonsense/unworkable in this thread at least, and you'll have to forgive me if I don't have time to go over your entire post history to glean some insight, so an executive summary or single example would be nice.

Because I'm not talking about "policy" at this point.  "Policy" is useless and irrelevant on the national stage at this point.   Case in point:  Trump, Sanders, and Clinton had almost IDENTICAL POSITIONS with respect to tariffs.  Yet, Trump is a Nazi Nationalist, Sanders is a Commie, and Clinton is a whichever-the-way-the-wind-blows moderate with zero principles.   Americans don't - at the voting booth, anyway - give two shits about "policy" and they haven't since at least the mid-90's. 

As an olive branch, I've given you one already:  the income reallocation aspect of her solution to climate change.  Here's another:  she is in favor of fully absolving all student loan debt.   Here's a third:  in the context of Trump as the lyingest liar to ever have lied, she's made the "Fake News" claim - in response to her provably false statements - at least twice now.   So I guess it's only bad to lie when it's the other guy?   

Quote
Quote
If you're on her side, it makes perfect sense, even the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".  If you're not, she's the socialist devil because, among other things, the "income redistribution as a solution for global warming".   YAWN.  American politics as usual, and thus, my point made.

That different people have different views on things? Otherwise I have no f-ing clue you think you are making.

"I think I am making"?   No need to be condescending.

Quote
Quote
She's doing zero to address the REAL problem here

Again, which is what exactly?

AGAIN, as I have said, addressing WHY we have Trump to begin with, and how we can avoid a repeat (or, if you will, a normalization) of what Trump stands for.   Fundamental to my premise here is that Trump is NOT an anomaly, and we as a country are not "just one moderate liberal away from normalcy".  Trump is the inevitable (and in hindsight, predictable) progression, albeit a somewhat extreme jump, from the politics we've been seeing steadily, incrementally, increasing since about the early '90's.   We are a media-driven society. It's not important WHAT you do, but rather how you do.  Your voting record isn't important, it's how you present on late night TV and social media.  In fact, you don't even have to HAVE a voting record, as long as you present well on late night TV and social media. 

Quote
Quote
and doubling down on the moralizing and identity politics emphases that got us Trump in the first place.

Indeed, I mean who wants a leader who has morals and recognizes different groups of people have different needs and different experiences of social and governmental systems? In any case, as far as reasons for Trump's election go, I think modern leftist identity politics is pretty far down the list.

Look, fine if you don't want to read what I write; who the fuck am i, right? I'm a prog fan with an opinion (read: one of millions of people in this world).    But, it's not unreasonable for me to ask that if you're going to mock the position, then at least understand it, because that statement clearly and unequivocally shows you do not.  I didn't say "moral".  I said "moralizing", that is, the reduction of EVERY issue down to a moral base, not to promote morality or to elevate our society, but to bully and coerce acceptance with the position.   Modern lefty politics is actually, in my opinion (and as a premise for most of what I've written) the single biggest cause of Trump and the single biggest instigator for his winning the election.   Somewhere between 6 and 12 million Obama voters decided to vote for Trump; these are not people that just decided to become "deplorable", or "racist" or "bigoted".  This was a direct and pointed response to the over-emphasis on identity politics TO THE EXCEPTION OF ALL ELSE.  Identity politics - via the moralizing of these positions (see above) - have become silver bullets in politics today.    Again, all things that some of the people here are no doubt tired of reading about.

Quote
Quote
And we don't live in Europe.  For 275 reasons (at least), what plays in Europe can't or won't play here. 

Go on then. What are they?

325 million people (the TOP FIVE European countries don't add up to 325 million)
9,800,000 km2 (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to even half that)
$20 TRILLION economy (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to that)
$30 BILLION in global aid (more than 50% more than the closest European contributor - Germany - and more than the third through seventh European contributors combined)
70% of NATO Military contributions (that means, more than ALL the other 27 countries combined)
50% of NATO GDP contributions

I can keep going if you want, but suggesting that because Sweden can have universal healthcare that "so can America!" is like saying "Well, if I can sing a Dream Theater song once in my basement with my buddies, then sure, I can do it on a stage in a stadium in front of 55,000 people, each night for a 50-date North American tour!"

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2019, 11:34:20 AM »
Because I'm not talking about "policy" at this point.  "Policy" is useless and irrelevant on the national stage at this point.   Case in point:  Trump, Sanders, and Clinton had almost IDENTICAL POSITIONS with respect to tariffs.  Yet, Trump is a Nazi Nationalist, Sanders is a Commie, and Clinton is a whichever-the-way-the-wind-blows moderate with zero principles.   Americans don't - at the voting booth, anyway - give two shits about "policy" and they haven't since at least the mid-90's.

There's plenty of polling data that would suggest otherwise.

Quote
As an olive branch, I've given you one already:  the income reallocation aspect of her solution to climate change. Here's another:  she is in favor of fully absolving all student loan debt.

So that's two policies. Why are they unworkable?

Quote
Here's a third:  in the context of Trump as the lyingest liar to ever have lied, she's made the "Fake News" claim - in response to her provably false statements - at least twice now.   So I guess it's only bad to lie when it's the other guy?

Not a policy, but false information should be challenged regardless of source, so no its bad whoever is doing it. I would make the caveat that misinformation due to misunderstanding the data, rather than actively intending to deceive, should be treated differently. One IS worse than the other. When comparing AOC to Trump, she at least demonstrates the capacity and willingness to learn and correct her mistakes.

Quote
"I think I am making"?   No need to be condescending.

Not my intention to be. If you interpreted it as such, I apologise.

Quote
Fundamental to my premise here is that Trump is NOT an anomaly, and we as a country are not "just one moderate liberal away from normalcy".  Trump is the inevitable (and in hindsight, predictable) progression, albeit a somewhat extreme jump, from the politics we've been seeing steadily, incrementally, increasing since about the early '90's.

I agree, if by 90s you mean 1890s. Or better yet, 1860s.

Quote
We are a media-driven society. It's not important WHAT you do, but rather how you do.  Your voting record isn't important, it's how you present on late night TV and social media.  In fact, you don't even have to HAVE a voting record, as long as you present well on late night TV and social media.

Currently a large number of candidates are being crucified on both left and right for their past positions and behavior on both the left and right sides of the aisle, which would suggest that this is not an absolutely true statement.

Quote
But, it's not unreasonable for me to ask that if you're going to mock the position, then at least understand it, because that statement clearly and unequivocally shows you do not.

Okay. Fair enough.

Quote
didn't say "moral".  I said "moralizing", that is, the reduction of EVERY issue down to a moral base, not to promote morality or to elevate our society, but to bully and coerce acceptance with the position. Modern lefty politics is actually, in my opinion (and as a premise for most of what I've written) the single biggest cause of Trump and the single biggest instigator for his winning the election.

Well, as someone who usually complains when candidates do not base their policies on facts rather than feelings, perhaps you could provide some data to support that hypothesis?

Quote
Somewhere between 6 and 12 million Obama voters decided to vote for Trump; these are not people that just decided to become "deplorable", or "racist" or "bigoted".

This implies these properties are active choices of the individual, rather than the result of slow evolution due to social and economic pressures. This fact does not also preclude the possibility they always were indulging in racial prejudice, just prejudice that was not targeted at Obama in particular. People who are racist against illegal immigrants are not necessarily racist against African-Americans for example.

Quote
This was a direct and pointed response to the over-emphasis on identity politics TO THE EXCEPTION OF ALL ELSE.

[Citation needed.]

There are studies of that group instead show that these voters were driven primarily by disruption of the status quo (which Obama certainly promised in his initial campaigning), healthcare (again, an Obama lnchpin) and, guess what, immigration. Which would suggest your hypothesis is flawed.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/obama-trump-voters-expect-change-dont-trust-gop/

Quote
325 million people (the TOP FIVE European countries don't add up to 325 million)
9,800,000 km2 (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to even half that)
$20 TRILLION economy (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to that)
$30 BILLION in global aid (more than 50% more than the closest European contributor - Germany - and more than the third through seventh European contributors combined)
70% of NATO Military contributions (that means, more than ALL the other 27 countries combined)
50% of NATO GDP contributions

I can keep going if you want

All you are doing is listing facts, not demonstrating why these facts preclude policies similar to european social policies working in america, so I would prefer you do that before you continue.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7089
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2019, 11:55:24 AM »
Quote
325 million people (the TOP FIVE European countries don't add up to 325 million)
9,800,000 km2 (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to even half that)
$20 TRILLION economy (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to that)
$30 BILLION in global aid (more than 50% more than the closest European contributor - Germany - and more than the third through seventh European contributors combined)
70% of NATO Military contributions (that means, more than ALL the other 27 countries combined)
50% of NATO GDP contributions

I can keep going if you want

All you are doing is listing facts, not demonstrating why these facts preclude policies similar to european social policies working in america, so I would prefer you do that before you continue.

Or you could stop trying to imply that every country that isn't Europe needs or wants to be.  Stadler isn't under any obligation to prove the contrary.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2019, 12:02:13 PM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?


I guess not...

Apologies. I would say that Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren would definitely come under the heading of "Young republicans with large social media presence and common appearances on cable TV." If you were after an actual representative I would struggle to name them, if only because the average age of a republican representative is quite high.

Provably false, at least relatively.  The average age of Democrats in the House of Representatives for the class prior to this current one is about four years OLDER than the average age of Republicans in the House.   https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/democrats-age-problem/index.html   The new class lowered the ages somewhat, but it's unclear how the breakdown is (yet) across party, since the Republicans replaced a number of their older representatives (Orrin Hatch for one) as well.  I've got better things to do than go through all 435 Representatives and calculate the average ages for each party in the House, but I do know this:  of the 20 oldest Representatives, 17 are Democrats (of the 20 youngest Reps., only 12 are Democrats).   Nancy Pelosi (leader of the Democrats in the House, and thus Speaker of the House) is 79.  Kevin McCarthy, Minority leader, is 54. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2019, 12:36:13 PM »
Because I'm not talking about "policy" at this point.  "Policy" is useless and irrelevant on the national stage at this point.   Case in point:  Trump, Sanders, and Clinton had almost IDENTICAL POSITIONS with respect to tariffs.  Yet, Trump is a Nazi Nationalist, Sanders is a Commie, and Clinton is a whichever-the-way-the-wind-blows moderate with zero principles.   Americans don't - at the voting booth, anyway - give two shits about "policy" and they haven't since at least the mid-90's.

There's plenty of polling data that would suggest otherwise.

Quote
As an olive branch, I've given you one already:  the income reallocation aspect of her solution to climate change. Here's another:  she is in favor of fully absolving all student loan debt.

So that's two policies. Why are they unworkable?

Really?  Okay, I'll bite.  Not one molecule of carbon dioxide is destroyed by me paying a dollar more for taxes, and someone in the lowest tax bracket (correspondingly) paying $1 less.    As for the student loan debt, it makes a mockery of the idea of "contract", since for better or worse, every one of those students that took those loans were of competent mind, and the two parties had consideration and intent (the two requirements for a binding contract).  Those companies that gave those loans - that now disappear - have payrolls to meet, and likely - through refinancing and what not - financial obligations of their own to meet.   

Quote
Quote
Here's a third:  in the context of Trump as the lyingest liar to ever have lied, she's made the "Fake News" claim - in response to her provably false statements - at least twice now.   So I guess it's only bad to lie when it's the other guy?

Not a policy, but false information should be challenged regardless of source, so no its bad whoever is doing it. I would make the caveat that misinformation due to misunderstanding the data, rather than actively intending to deceive, should be treated differently. One IS worse than the other. When comparing AOC to Trump, she at least demonstrates the capacity and willingness to learn and correct her mistakes.

I haven't seen that as of yet.  It takes literally 30 seconds to fact check the 22nd Amendment and yet, she didn't bother, even after being called out on previous "mistakes" of fact, and even after calling for our President to do the same.

Quote
Quote
Fundamental to my premise here is that Trump is NOT an anomaly, and we as a country are not "just one moderate liberal away from normalcy".  Trump is the inevitable (and in hindsight, predictable) progression, albeit a somewhat extreme jump, from the politics we've been seeing steadily, incrementally, increasing since about the early '90's.

I agree, if by 90s you mean 1890s. Or better yet, 1860s.

No, I very much mean the 1990's, when - SYMBOLICALLY - Bill Clinton decided (and was proved correct) that it was more politically expedient to go on Arsenio Hall and blow saxophone with Ray-Bans than to talk policy on Meet The Press (or similar political show, as every candidate had since Eisenhower).   Now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has, to my knowledge, one appearance on Meet The Press, but multiple appearances on Colbert, a planned appearance on Seth Meyers, etc. etc.

Quote
Quote
We are a media-driven society. It's not important WHAT you do, but rather how you do.  Your voting record isn't important, it's how you present on late night TV and social media.  In fact, you don't even have to HAVE a voting record, as long as you present well on late night TV and social media.

Currently a large number of candidates are being crucified on both left and right for their past positions and behavior on both the left and right sides of the aisle, which would suggest that this is not an absolutely true statement.

Well, we disagree here, or at least in a productive way.   I point to the Secure Fence Act.   

Quote
Quote
didn't say "moral".  I said "moralizing", that is, the reduction of EVERY issue down to a moral base, not to promote morality or to elevate our society, but to bully and coerce acceptance with the position. Modern lefty politics is actually, in my opinion (and as a premise for most of what I've written) the single biggest cause of Trump and the single biggest instigator for his winning the election.

Well, as someone who usually complains when candidates do not base their policies on facts rather than feelings, perhaps you could provide some data to support that hypothesis?

I've done that in the previous post.  Calling people "deplorable" for not prioritizing ALLEGED racism and bigotry as a deal-breaker.   Pointing to the between 6 and 12 million* people that voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.   Refusing to fund even $1 to a border wall that was ostensibly approved by the entire House previously, on grounds that it is "immoral".   

* I give a range here because for some reason these numbers rankle some of the readers here; it's an impossible number to absolutely quantify, but the number is likely in the 7 million range, but has been estimated as low as 6 million and in one article - that was later amended downward - as high as 15 million. I'm good with even six million, because it explains the differential in the battleground states that ultimately decided our last Presidential election. 

Quote
Quote
Somewhere between 6 and 12 million Obama voters decided to vote for Trump; these are not people that just decided to become "deplorable", or "racist" or "bigoted".

This implies these properties are active choices of the individual, rather than the result of slow evolution due to social and economic pressures. This fact does not also preclude the possibility they always were indulging in racial prejudice, just prejudice that was not targeted at Obama in particular. People who are racist against illegal immigrants are not necessarily racist against African-Americans for example.

Maybe, maybe not.  That's still not the "deplorable" argument, nor the argument against Trump as the head of a nationalist wave that threatens to undermine our democracy.   There's not one - literally not ONE - clear instance of Trump ACTUALLY implementing fascist/Nazi progams/policies in our government.   No political dissidents have been illegally (against due process) jailed, no laws have been passed that removes or changes the checks and balances of our government, no laws have been passed outlawing any political speech, or criminalizing any of the major press outlets.   No laws have been passed that effectively bring either the media or any major industries directly under the control of the state.   I could go on here too. 

Quote
Quote
This was a direct and pointed response to the over-emphasis on identity politics TO THE EXCEPTION OF ALL ELSE.

[Citation needed.]

There are studies of that group instead show that these voters were driven primarily by disruption of the status quo (which Obama certainly promised in his initial campaigning), healthcare (again, an Obama lnchpin) and, guess what, immigration. Which would suggest your hypothesis is flawed.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/obama-trump-voters-expect-change-dont-trust-gop/

Link doesn't work for me, but that's not far from what I'm saying.  I'm saying that Obama DID "promise" certain things ("Change you can believe in!") but largely didn't deliver.  Instead, the Democratic Party was rich with obstruction, and interested in high profile but low impact issues like "what bathroom can transgender people use?"    My argument is essentially that those people were willing to accept a President that was going to put food on their table in lieu of securing cushy bathroom facilities for the 37,000 (http://time.com/4325181/north-carolina-bathroom-transgender-population/) people directly impacted by the North Carolina bathroom wars. 

Quote
325 million people (the TOP FIVE European countries don't add up to 325 million)
9,800,000 km2 (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to even half that)
$20 TRILLION economy (the TOP TEN European countries don't add up to that)
$30 BILLION in global aid (more than 50% more than the closest European contributor - Germany - and more than the third through seventh European contributors combined)
70% of NATO Military contributions (that means, more than ALL the other 27 countries combined)
50% of NATO GDP contributions

I can keep going if you want

All you are doing is listing facts, not demonstrating why these facts preclude policies similar to european social policies working in america, so I would prefer you do that before you continue.
[/quote]
I'd prefer if you'd stop making me repeat myself, but the world isn't perfect.  :)   

I'm saying that there are distinct problems of scale that are patently ignored when comparing a random country in Europe and the United States.   We saw that here; by many accounts, universal healthcare in Massachusetts (pop. 7 million, one set of laws) worked gangbusters (and is still working), earning the (positive) nickname "Romneycare", whereas the program implemented across the United States - 325 million people and at least 52 different jurisdictional regulatory schemes - has been at best an underwhelming program, and at worst an abject failure (depending on your metric).   

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30482
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2019, 01:51:34 PM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?


I guess not...

Apologies. I would say that Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren would definitely come under the heading of "Young republicans with large social media presence and common appearances on cable TV." If you were after an actual representative I would struggle to name them, if only because the average age of a republican representative is quite high.

You moved the goal posts and still admitted that you would struggle to name one.   :tup :tup

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2019, 02:28:55 PM »
You moved the goal posts and still admitted that you would struggle to name one.   :tup :tup

I just named two didn't I?

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1101
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2019, 02:44:34 PM »
Quote
Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish,

.....if?

What does that mean?  Is there currently a 29-year old Republican who fits that description of whom I am unaware?


I guess not...

Apologies. I would say that Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren would definitely come under the heading of "Young republicans with large social media presence and common appearances on cable TV." If you were after an actual representative I would struggle to name them, if only because the average age of a republican representative is quite high.

You moved the goal posts and still admitted that you would struggle to name one.   :tup :tup


Ben Shapiro is a charismatic young Republican with far right views who goes on talk shows, is welcomed on to large platforms like the Joe Rogan Experience, and has the #2 rated podcast of his own. He's pretty damn good example of what you were asking about.



edit: Shapiro is not far left, lol

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7680
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #60 on: April 05, 2019, 03:02:59 PM »
I wouldn't say Shapiro's views are that "far" right but everyone has a bit of a sliding scale in how they define right/left.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28729
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #61 on: April 05, 2019, 03:37:43 PM »
I wouldn't say Shapiro's views are that "far" right but everyone has a bit of a sliding scale in how they define right/left.

I can say in Israel (and now becoming America too) the perception is that it's either "Right/Center" or "Radical extreme left." While no one wants to admit to far right wing stuff, and anything left of right is considered extreme. Literally a guy running for PM in Israel who started boasting about all the Arabs he killed in war and how he will never allow for a Palestinian state was called an extremist lefty. America is following suit.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22371
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #62 on: April 05, 2019, 03:56:53 PM »
I wouldn't say Shapiro's views are that "far" right but everyone has a bit of a sliding scale in how they define right/left.

I can say in Israel (and now becoming America too) the perception is that it's either "Right/Center" or "Radical extreme left." While no one wants to admit to far right wing stuff, and anything left of right is considered extreme. Literally a guy running for PM in Israel who started boasting about all the Arabs he killed in war and how he will never allow for a Palestinian state was called an extremist lefty. America is following suit.
Reminds me of the GOP debate when all of the governors bragged about how many people they've executed. One guy had to sadly proclaim that his legislature did away with the death penalty, but he'd kill more than any of them if they'd let him. Ironically the debate was in St. Reagan's presidential library, and they all evoked his name at every opportunity, though Reagan hated capital punishment. Another example of the shifting landscape you refer to.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13194
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2019, 07:31:20 PM »
Another example of the shifting landscape

Another example of a shifting landscape is illegal immigration. EVERY point that Trump makes and spouts about illegal immigration.....about needing more ICE and Border Patrol Agents, New Sections of an actual Wall.....fixing the old....etc etc are and were exact points that Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi...all of the Dem leadership were saying and making only three years ago...until Trump won.

Now if you say you're 'in favor' of a wall and strengthening our border security in both manpower and physical structures....you have no compassion and are labeled some sort of racist A-Hole. The Democrats have changed their tune strictly for political gain and while you may try to make the argument that is what Trump is doing....to an extent that may be true to fire up his base but at least his claim is based in our Constitution. Where the Federal governments primary responsibility is to protect our country from foreign invasion....and that's exactly what illegal immigration is.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3476
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #64 on: April 05, 2019, 08:16:51 PM »
Another example of the shifting landscape

Another example of a shifting landscape is illegal immigration. EVERY point that Trump makes and spouts about illegal immigration.....about needing more ICE and Border Patrol Agents, New Sections of an actual Wall.....fixing the old....etc etc are and were exact points that Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi...all of the Dem leadership were saying and making only three years ago...until Trump won.

Now if you say you're 'in favor' of a wall and strengthening our border security in both manpower and physical structures....you have no compassion and are labeled some sort of racist A-Hole. The Democrats have changed their tune strictly for political gain and while you may try to make the argument that is what Trump is doing....to an extent that may be true to fire up his base but at least his claim is based in our Constitution. Where the Federal governments primary responsibility is to protect our country from foreign invasion....and that's exactly what illegal immigration is.


I'm not saying that you don't have some valid points or opinions buried in there......but they lose any real credibility when they are soaking in that much hyperbole, and in many cases simple falsehoods.  You start off with the point that there is flip-flopping in politics......no argument there.  Both parties are just as guilty as the other in that case......but then to justify your side with exaggerations, hyperbole, and falsehoods is an example of what is wrong with today's politics in our country.   Like this Doozie:

"Where the Federal governments primary responsibility is to protect our country from foreign invasion....and that's exactly what illegal immigration is."

Seriously man???  Illegal Immigration is a Foreign Invasion????  No....just no.  They are very different in practically every sense.  You've been played and fed a bunch of BS to manipulate you, and you bought it....just like millions of others in this country.  On BOTH sides.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 08:44:02 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30482
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #65 on: April 05, 2019, 08:21:00 PM »
You moved the goal posts and still admitted that you would struggle to name one.   :tup :tup

I just named two didn't I?

After moving the goal posts, sort of, but in the context of what I said in my original post, I obviously meant "Republicans" in the sense of an elected official, not any political talking head who identifies as a Republican.  I guess I could have been more clear and said, "Trust me, if there was a charismatic 29-year old Republican congressperson tweeting 12 times a day and going on talk shows and talking non-stop about ideas that the other side would describe as extreme or "very right-ish..."  I thought the context of my post had made that obvious, but I guess not.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13194
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #66 on: April 05, 2019, 08:43:44 PM »
Seriously man???  Illegal Immigration is a Foreign Invasion????  No....just no.  They are very different in practically every sense.  You've been played and fed a bunch of BS to manipulate you, and you bought it....just like millions of others in this country.  On BOTH sides.

No...that's what it is.

in·va·sion  /inˈvāZHən/  noun

- an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
synonyms:   influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, torrent, deluge, stream, avalanche

- an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
synonyms:violation, infringement, interruption, disturbance, disruption, breach, infraction; intrusion into, encroachment on, trespass on, obtrusion into, interference with

- an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
synonyms:   occupation, conquering, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation;

Just because illegal immigrants aren't wearing coordinated military uniforms or armed like a military doesn't mean they aren't 'invading'. There's a right and wrong way to enter the United States....just like every other country in the world. If you're here illegally you in fact...by definition....have invaded.

And the other side of the pendulum is just as pertinent here as you accuse me of being 'played' and 'manipulated' into my stance on illegal immigration....I'd say the same about yours and how the liberal agenda has convinced you that illegal immigration is apparently no big deal and there should just be open borders.


My opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact that the Dems have altered the landscape on illegal immigration despite having had the exact same thoughts/ideas/approach on it as Trump did as recently as 2-1/2 years ago. All of them....on tape and video saying the exact same things Trump says right now. But they're willing to ignore their duty on the matter in order to garner some votes and I guess make the point they are more moral?
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3476
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #67 on: April 05, 2019, 09:01:20 PM »
Seriously man???  Illegal Immigration is a Foreign Invasion????  No....just no.  They are very different in practically every sense.  You've been played and fed a bunch of BS to manipulate you, and you bought it....just like millions of others in this country.  On BOTH sides.

No...that's what it is.

in·va·sion  /inˈvāZHən/  noun

- an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
synonyms:   influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, torrent, deluge, stream, avalanche

- an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
synonyms:violation, infringement, interruption, disturbance, disruption, breach, infraction; intrusion into, encroachment on, trespass on, obtrusion into, interference with

- an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
synonyms:   occupation, conquering, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation;

Just because illegal immigrants aren't wearing coordinated military uniforms or armed like a military doesn't mean they aren't 'invading'. There's a right and wrong way to enter the United States....just like every other country in the world. If you're here illegally you in fact...by definition....have invaded.

And the other side of the pendulum is just as pertinent here as you accuse me of being 'played' and 'manipulated' into my stance on illegal immigration....I'd say the same about yours and how the liberal agenda has convinced you that illegal immigration is apparently no big deal and there should just be open borders.

First, if you are going to use the Constitution as support for your position, then you should probably use its intended meaning for "Foreign Invasion".  I don't think the framers meant the broad and diffuse Websters definitions like the first two. 
They clearly meant a Military invasion from an foreign entity/group/country/army/etc. by force, with the purpose to take control or destroy the United States.  To say that the broad issue of illegal immigration even remotely fits that definition is a stretch that even Stretch Armstrong would be proud of. 
-They are not in any group, army, or organization.  They are individuals, families, and children from countless countries, religions, cultures, cities, states, ethnicities, etc.
-They are not trying to take control or destroy.  They are mostly trying to better their lives, opportunities, and future.  They are fleeing hunger, violence, religious persecution, and devastating economic hardship.
Are there exceptions?  Of course...but that does not a Foreign Invasion make.
Illegal Immigration is a law enforcement, humanitarian, civil, logistical, and moral issue that ABSOLUTELY needs to be addressed.
Riling up people fooling them into thinking it is a Foreign invasion is a disgraceful thing to do.

Dems and Trump do not, and have not had the EXACT same positions either.  It differs as much as it had similarities.  Another falsehood to base your dislike of the other side on.  Saying that Dems are against EXACTLY what they were in favor of before is simply not true.  But it justifies your narrative.  The truth lies somewhere in between on many political issues, but that doesn't fit well in a framework that has the right and left as enemies on extreme opposite sides of each other.  That is what they want you to believe.  I see that BOTH sides are shitty and manipulative, and if they could stop being self serving douches for 5 minutes, would find they have more in common than not.

And to further illustrate my point, you now accuse me of saying illegal immigration is "no big deal", and I want "open borders"????   :lol :lol :lol.  That is you being manipulated into thinking in extremes again.  If I don't agree with you then I must be liberal, and think Illegal Immigration is "no big deal" and want "open Borders".  I never said that....I merely disagreed with your assertion that it is a Foreign Invasion....which by definition it is not.  I actually think it is a serious issue that needs addressing.  I just dont think it is a remake of Red Dawn.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 09:24:03 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13194
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2019, 09:23:40 PM »
 :lol   I love the call out to Red Dawn....that was awesome.

I’m not sure where in my posting history one would get the assumption that I don’t or wouldn’t care about the people who are trying to come to our country. I get what you’re saying about them....I think any one of us in that situation would be just as desperate. But you can’t govern a country based on ignoring the laws. Illegal immigration is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Impassable, physical barriers....more ICE and Border Patrol agents AND the use of Technology is a large chunk of the answer. Another part is streamlining the system to allow these work visas and/or citizenships to be granted quicker.

And I will disagree with you wholeheartedly about the stance that the top Dems held only a few short years ago to where they are now.....because there is ample video evidence of it out there. I’m not going to waste my time and link them all either....they’re there and I think we all have seen them. Some were near exact comments that trump has made...some were the same general comments....but all agreed that better barriers, more agents and technology were the first thing that should be addressed. But now it’s en vogue to demonize trump and people who want to see stronger immigration tactics.

And...for what it’s worth....I apologize for lumping you’re stance on illegal immigration in with the ‘common’ stance taken by those who live on the ‘left’ side of the aisle. It’s an assumption I made based off of the temperature of most your posts. I agree with you on your sentiment about ‘both sides’  being shitty.....how they’ve created this divisive war within our country is very sad....especially when the bulk of us realize that were we all to work towards common goals good things could be achieved.


Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3476
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #69 on: April 05, 2019, 09:44:58 PM »
:lol   I love the call out to Red Dawn....that was awesome.

I’m not sure where in my posting history one would get the assumption that I don’t or wouldn’t care about the people who are trying to come to our country. I get what you’re saying about them....I think any one of us in that situation would be just as desperate. But you can’t govern a country based on ignoring the laws. Illegal immigration is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Impassable, physical barriers....more ICE and Border Patrol agents AND the use of Technology is a large chunk of the answer. Another part is streamlining the system to allow these work visas and/or citizenships to be granted quicker.

And I will disagree with you wholeheartedly about the stance that the top Dems held only a few short years ago to where they are now.....because there is ample video evidence of it out there. I’m not going to waste my time and link them all either....they’re there and I think we all have seen them. Some were near exact comments that trump has made...some were the same general comments....but all agreed that better barriers, more agents and technology were the first thing that should be addressed. But now it’s en vogue to demonize trump and people who want to see stronger immigration tactics.

And...for what it’s worth....I apologize for lumping you’re stance on illegal immigration in with the ‘common’ stance taken by those who live on the ‘left’ side of the aisle. It’s an assumption I made based off of the temperature of most your posts. I agree with you on your sentiment about ‘both sides’  being shitty.....how they’ve created this divisive war within our country is very sad....especially when the bulk of us realize that were we all to work towards common goals good things could be achieved.

Dude, you need to re-read our interaction.  I never once made any assumption about you....at least not one that had you not caring about immigrants.  Not once.  I merely was describing illegal immigrants, their general characteristics and motivations, and how that doesn't jive with what I think  "Foreign Invaders" means in the context of the Constitution.  I absolutely think Immigration is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.  It is a law enforcement issue....not a foreign invasion issue.  Equating it to Foreign Invasion is nothing more than fear mongering IMO.

If you think the illegal immigration issue needs to be addressed with barriers, technology, ICE, Border patrol, legal system improvements  (visas/judges/courts)....then YOU dont think its a Foreign Invasion either!!!  If you did, then the solution to address an invasion is a full military response.

And with the stance Dems And GOP have held now, and in the past.....they have/had similarities no doubt.  Im sure some points were exactly the same.  But that is just simply not the point.  The point is that there is flip flopping on both sides....BOTH sides are douchey that way.  But there are differences too, and those differences can fuck things up.  BOTH sides are not compromising and finding middle ground.  If a person is blaming only one side for this cluster-fuck, then they are not seeing the facts and truth of the matter.  I am sure we could start a new thread and go over all the points, but rest assured, blame lies on BOTH sides.
You want Dems to own up to the border security they wanted years ago....but the specifics of that position are not all the same as the border security Trump wants now.  They both want things that are not what the other want....yet NEITHER will compromise.  THAT is my point.  To lay blame on one side shows a lack of understanding on the issues and situation....it's like a crazy unhinged sports rivalry.

And no need to apologize as I take no offense to it.  That is because I am not personally or emotionally invested in one "team" or the other.  Your big mistake is not that you lumped me in to the "common" stance of the Lefties....it's that you think that IS the common stance of someone who may have differing views from you on issues (or the "left"). 
If someone disagrees with Trump's or GOP's solution (or characterization of the issue), that does not make them "Lefties", or that the think Illegal Immigration is "no big deal", or w"want open borders".  That is the hyperbole that manipulates people into the extreme camps.
If you really want to work towards a common goal, try not to think of people that have differing views as being in the other corner of the ring, or as a fan of a rival team.  THAT is the manipulation I speak of....and I am not immune to it.  We have to fight against that and find our common goals.
You and I both think illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed.  I don't think that we should be divided as a people because we think differently about how those issues are addressed.

And thank you for appreciating the Red Dawn reference.  Just to be clear, I am talking about the original.  Never saw the remake. 

Wolverines!!!!!!

Boys!!!   Avenge Meee!   AVEEENGE MEEEE!!!!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 09:59:05 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29