DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

I never see you attacking Trump or his minions. To the contrary, you are constantly defending them. During the time period you mention, can you really name far left Democratic candidates who lost general elections? Most of those defeated were exactly the type of moderate Democrats you think will save the party. Democrats constantly campaigned as Republicans-lite. They focused their campaigns so much on moderate Republicans, that much of the Democratic base didn't bother to vote. I just saw an analysis of the age breakdown of those who voted for AOC and she had nearly as many young voters as old. That's almost unheard of because young voters are not supposed to come out and vote in primaries and mid-term elections. But, guess what? If your platform includes things that young voters support, they will come out and vote.

The mythical moderate Republicans are like the poster who has been responding in this thread. Her party is led by Trump but she is still a happy Republican. Do you seriously think it is worth the compromise it would take to attract her to the Democratic Party? Instead of wasting time on her, it is far better to appeal to the natural Democratic base.

I was going to get off the forum but I will respond to the above with one question:

How did Obama win so decisively in 2008? Yes, the black vote was a factor for sure. But take a look at the states he won: what happened that caused us to lose that large swath of the country? Voters knew they were voting for a black guy or did they suddenly experience a Paul on the road to Damascus moment and it hit them that the guy was black?

Hint: racism has nothing to do with it although liberals use that as the excuse repeatedly.

And I'm the "mythical moderate Republican" whom the moderator said was a waste of time. I voted for Obama in 2008, as just one example of when I've voted D. Just to prove your point.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

I never see you attacking Trump or his minions. To the contrary, you are constantly defending them. During the time period you mention, can you really name far left Democratic candidates who lost general elections? Most of those defeated were exactly the type of moderate Democrats you think will save the party. Democrats constantly campaigned as Republicans-lite. They focused their campaigns so much on moderate Republicans, that much of the Democratic base didn't bother to vote. I just saw an analysis of the age breakdown of those who voted for AOC and she had nearly as many young voters as old. That's almost unheard of because young voters are not supposed to come out and vote in primaries and mid-term elections. But, guess what? If your platform includes things that young voters support, they will come out and vote.

The mythical moderate Republicans are like the poster who has been responding in this thread. Her party is led by Trump but she is still a happy Republican. Do you seriously think it is worth the compromise it would take to attract her to the Democratic Party? Instead of wasting time on her, it is far better to appeal to the natural Democratic base.

I was going to get off the forum but I will respond to the above with one question:

How did Obama win so decisively in 2008? Yes, the black vote was a factor for sure. But take a look at the states he won: what happened that caused us to lose that large swath of the country? Voters knew they were voting for a black guy or did they suddenly experience a Paul on the road to Damascus moment and it hit them that the guy was black?

Hint: racism has nothing to do with it although liberals use that as the excuse repeatedly.

Obama won because he motivated groups that often don't vote such as black and young voters. The drop off of votes for Clinton in 2016 compared to Obama in 2012 were exactly in Democratic strongholds. I would argue that the compromises made to pass the ACA played a huge role in Clinton's defeat. Ironically, Trump has made the ACA extremely popular now.

I don't know why you are bringing up racism, but if you don't think racism had a role in the opposition to Obama, you are delusional. There is a direct line between the Trump's racism that he has exhibited throughout his life to his birthirism to his election on a white nationalist platform.

[Anonymous]

she's cute. she'll win.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was going to get off the forum but I will respond to the above with one question:

How did Obama win so decisively in 2008? Yes, the black vote was a factor for sure. But take a look at the states he won: what happened that caused us to lose that large swath of the country? Voters knew they were voting for a black guy or did they suddenly experience a Paul on the road to Damascus moment and it hit them that the guy was black?

Hint: racism has nothing to do with it although liberals use that as the excuse repeatedly.

Obama won because he motivated groups that often don't vote such as black and young voters. The drop off of votes for Clinton in 2016 compared to Obama in 2012 were exactly in Democratic strongholds. I would argue that the compromises made to pass the ACA played a huge role in Clinton's defeat. Ironically, Trump has made the ACA extremely popular now.

I don't know why you are bringing up racism, but if you don't think racism had a role in the opposition to Obama, you are delusional. There is a direct line between the Trump's racism that he has exhibited throughout his life to his birthirism to his election on a white nationalist platform.

Of course, racism has been a factor in how some people vote and I have never pretended otherwise but to attribute Hillary's loss to racism is absurd. Hillary lost a lot of voters in the key battleground states who voted for Obama and who switched to Trump and there are multiple studies that confirm this. It was the loss of these voters in those states that swung the election to Trump. I believe that you respect Nate Cohn's work and here is what he says:

The story of the 2016 presidential election is simple. Donald J. Trump made huge gains among white voters without a college degree. His gains were large enough to cancel out considerable losses among well-educated white voters and a decade of demographic shifts.

There are questions and details still up for debate: whether Democrats can win back these voters, and how to think about and frame the decline in black turnout. But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.

Mr. Milbank’s choice to use nationwide figures obscures the degree of the defection of white working-class voters from the Democrats to Mr. Trump ........

But the national vote doesn’t count, and Mrs. Clinton is not the president. She lost primarily because of the narrow but deep swing among white working-class voters who were overrepresented in decisive battleground states.

Just 74 percent of white Obama voters with a high school diploma or less backed Mrs. Clinton in the voter study group cited by Mr. Milbank.

And the key to Democratic electoral success is how we win back those voters - many of whom have been historically inclined to vote for Democrats - back into the fold. I would argue that it is not by disparaging them which seems to be the mantra among some liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

[Anonymous]

As she touts her “economic” credentials, she seems to have a lot to learn about economics.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist and former organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, attracted national attention after her upset primary victory over Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in a Queens- and Bronx-based district. But critics pounced on some of her remarks during an interview on the PBS show Firing Line with Margaret Hoover.

During the interview, Ocasio-Cortez said, "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." (It’s at about 5:45 in this video.)

This comment drew criticism from a number of right-leaning outlets, including the National Review, Hot Air, TownHall.com and Reason.

Our ruling
Ocasio-Cortez said, "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."

Even taking into account rhetorical excess, her statement is off in multiple ways. Fewer than one in 20 employed Americans holds a second job of any type, and the people who might be working as much as 70 or 80 hours a week represent a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction. The rates for either statistic are not high by historical standards.

In any case, the BLS does not use either of those factors in determining the official unemployment rate.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution. Specifically, it's against private property and liberty.

At the end of the day, an individual is an individual. If people don't want to participate in your utopia, STOP FORCING THEM. All the "democratic socialist" programs you support FORCE those who don't want to participate to do so against their will. From mandatory union dues to FICA to high taxes for whatever you want and anything in-between.

Adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Not some vision where words are twisted into pretzels so you can distribute free stuff. That's all I ask. 1+1 really does equal 2.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As she touts her “economic” credentials, she seems to have a lot to learn about economics.

Trump campaigned saying that the real unemployment rate was 42%, so based on precedent AOC will probably be our next president. For what it is worth, her point was that the unemployment rate doesn't reflect the reality of a lot of jobs -- people aren't getting raises and due to inflation are actually suffering wage decreases. As a result, people are taking second jobs or "side gigs" like driving for Uber.

This is one area where you won't be able to bs people. They know what they are earning and if it hasn't changed, no amount of telling them it has will work.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution. Specifically, it's against private property and liberty.

At the end of the day, an individual is an individual. If people don't want to participate in your utopia, STOP FORCING THEM. All the "democratic socialist" programs you support FORCE those who don't want to participate to do so against their will. From mandatory union dues to FICA to high taxes for whatever you want and anything in-between.

Adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Not some vision where words are twisted into pretzels so you can distribute free stuff. That's all I ask. 1+1 really does equal 2.

Democratic socialism is absolutely not opposed to private property and liberty. You are wildly uniformed. Do you think that Scandinavia or most of Western Europe lack private property or liberty? Trumpsters talk about East coast liberals living in a bubble, but what kind of a bubble must you live in to believe things like this PP?

I assume that you drive to work on a public road? Why are you using that socialist infrastructure instead of paying a toll to take a privately owned road?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution. Specifically, it's against private property and liberty.

At the end of the day, an individual is an individual. If people don't want to participate in your utopia, STOP FORCING THEM. All the "democratic socialist" programs you support FORCE those who don't want to participate to do so against their will. From mandatory union dues to FICA to high taxes for whatever you want and anything in-between.

Adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Not some vision where words are twisted into pretzels so you can distribute free stuff. That's all I ask. 1+1 really does equal 2.

Democratic socialism is absolutely not opposed to private property and liberty. You are wildly uniformed. Do you think that Scandinavia or most of Western Europe lack private property or liberty? Trumpsters talk about East coast liberals living in a bubble, but what kind of a bubble must you live in to believe things like this PP?

I assume that you drive to work on a public road? Why are you using that socialist infrastructure instead of paying a toll to take a privately owned road?

Taxpayer funding for public roads is specifically listed in the Constitution. See 'postal roads'

The problem with democratic socialism is that it DOES put restrictions on freedom. So while you can own private property, it will be in a much more restrictive format.

Take for example, the initiative in Portland a while back to control people's thermostats in their private homes. You can control your heat/air, until we, the government, determine that you are outside our set parameters then WE control it for you.

Another example would be if we the government, determine that builders can only build in planned work/residential communities and you cannot own more than X amount of land.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Taxpayer funding for public roads is specifically listed in the Constitution. See 'postal roads'

The problem with democratic socialism is that it DOES put restrictions on freedom. So while you can own private property, it will be in a much more restrictive format.

Take for example, the initiative in Portland a while back to control people's thermostats in their private homes. You can control your heat/air, until we, the government, determine that you are outside our set parameters then WE control it for you.

Another example would be if we the government, determine that builders can only build in planned work/residential communities and you cannot own more than X amount of land.

So you are saying that the US Constitution is socialist? Just wait until the Trumpsters find out. Setting thermostat temperatures has nothing to do with socialism. Do you even know what socialism is? If you believe that zoning laws are socialist, then you've already lost the battle against socialism. That horse is well out of the gate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxpayer funding for public roads is specifically listed in the Constitution. See 'postal roads'

The problem with democratic socialism is that it DOES put restrictions on freedom. So while you can own private property, it will be in a much more restrictive format.

Take for example, the initiative in Portland a while back to control people's thermostats in their private homes. You can control your heat/air, until we, the government, determine that you are outside our set parameters then WE control it for you.

Another example would be if we the government, determine that builders can only build in planned work/residential communities and you cannot own more than X amount of land.

So you are saying that the US Constitution is socialist? Just wait until the Trumpsters find out. Setting thermostat temperatures has nothing to do with socialism. Do you even know what socialism is? If you believe that zoning laws are socialist, then you've already lost the battle against socialism. That horse is well out of the gate.

Your line of thought is off. The Constitution is not a charter of negative liberties. It's a legal document that tells the people where the Feds will spend their tax dollars and dictates Federal law. Anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the state/local governments.

Miriam Webster:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work don

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:she's cute. she'll win.

She looks old for her age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:she's cute. she'll win.

She looks old for her age.

The right is trying to trivialize her with talk about her looks, as a kind of hyper sexualized latina.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:she's cute. she'll win.

She looks old for her age.

The right is trying to trivialize her with talk about her looks, as a kind of hyper sexualized latina.

Disgusting.

Keep telling yourself that.
The information I have read from right-leaning media don’t even mention her looks or appearance.
They are more appalled by her lack of understanding issues and her positions that have little basis in reality.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution. Specifically, it's against private property and liberty.

At the end of the day, an individual is an individual. If people don't want to participate in your utopia, STOP FORCING THEM. All the "democratic socialist" programs you support FORCE those who don't want to participate to do so against their will. From mandatory union dues to FICA to high taxes for whatever you want and anything in-between.

Adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Not some vision where words are twisted into pretzels so you can distribute free stuff. That's all I ask. 1+1 really does equal 2.

Democratic socialism is absolutely not opposed to private property and liberty. You are wildly uniformed. Do you think that Scandinavia or most of Western Europe lack private property or liberty? Trumpsters talk about East coast liberals living in a bubble, but what kind of a bubble must you live in to believe things like this PP?

I assume that you drive to work on a public road? Why are you using that socialist infrastructure instead of paying a toll to take a privately owned road?

They are opposed to privately property, specifically privately owned corporate property. Here are their own words:

https://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom

"Socialists therefore argue that private corporate property is not only wrong, but also nonsensical. Wealth is a social creation and should be controlled by society as a whole."

"In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. "

https://www.dsausa.org/private_corporations_seem_to_be_a_permanent_fixture_in_theus_so_why_work_towards_socialism


An here is a friendly left wing media outlet reporting on their national convention:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national

"Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists."

"In practice, that means DSA believes in ending the private ownership of a wide range of industries whose products are viewed as “necessities,” which they say should not be left to those seeking to turn a profit. According to DSA’s current mission statement, the government should ensure all citizens receive adequate food, housing, health care, child care, and education. DSA also believes that the government should “democratize” private businesses — i.e., force owners to give workers control over them — to the greatest extent possible."

" David Duhalde, DSA’s deputy director, says the “overwhelming majority” of its current members are committed to socialism’s enactment through the outright abolition of capitalism."