DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

Another Politifact check about Ocasio-Cortez.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-misrepresents-ices-detent/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another Politifact check about Ocasio-Cortez.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-misrepresents-ices-detent/

She's a complete joke. To hear her speak, she sounds like a clueless young woman who has pie-in-the-sky ideas about "helping people."

She'll be gone by Election Day.

[jsteele]

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

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:She'll be gone by Election Day.

LOL. Shows how little you know. Where is she going?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Another Politifact check about Ocasio-Cortez.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-misrepresents-ices-detent/

From the article:

However, according to a DHS report, in order to track compliance with the congressional mandate, ICE measures its "average daily population." So while the letter of the law may not require ICE to detain 34,000 people each day, it may have been in ICE’s best interest to act like it did.

So, she was de jure wrong but de facto very close if not entirely accurate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

Did you read the quotes?

They state they want to end corporatations and give workers control over corporations.

I'm guessing that's why you banned my IP...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the quotes?

They state they want to end corporatations and give workers control over corporations.

I'm guessing that's why you banned my IP...

Not one quote says that, at least in full context. Out of context I guess you can make anything say anything. Also, I haven't banned any IP addresses today.

[Anonymous]

Is this really the future of the Democratic party?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democrats-socialism-will-bury-us-in-debt-we-wont-be-able-to-get-out-from-under-2018-07-11

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the quotes?

They state they want to end corporatations and give workers control over corporations.

I'm guessing that's why you banned my IP...

Not one quote says that, at least in full context. Out of context I guess you can make anything say anything. Also, I haven't banned any IP addresses today.

Those quotes explicitly stated that they "want to end capitalism",that private corporate ownership is "wrong and, nonsensical", that corporations can't be eliminated in the short term. Further reading of those links discuss how they desire to nationalize key industries.

It is clear that they are ok with a person owning a product, but not the means of production. That means they do not believe in private property, but instead severly limited property rights. Your comments on reading comprehension are entirely unfounded.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Is this really the future of the Democratic party?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democrats-socialism-will-bury-us-in-debt-we-wont-be-able-to-get-out-from-under-2018-07-11

I love when people who supported the Republican tax scam which buried us in debt worry that democratic socialists will bury us in debt. When the critics show that they actually care about debt, maybe I'll take them more seriously.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the quotes?

They state they want to end corporatations and give workers control over corporations.

I'm guessing that's why you banned my IP...

Not one quote says that, at least in full context. Out of context I guess you can make anything say anything. Also, I haven't banned any IP addresses today.

Those quotes explicitly stated that they "want to end capitalism",that private corporate ownership is "wrong and, nonsensical", that corporations can't be eliminated in the short term. Further reading of those links discuss how they desire to nationalize key industries.

It is clear that they are ok with a person owning a product, but not the means of production. That means they do not believe in private property, but instead severly limited property rights. Your comments on reading comprehension are entirely unfounded.

You contradicted yourself right in your own post. You say they are okay with a person owning a product. Actually, they are okay with owning a lot more than that. For instance, they support ownership of real estate. But, then you say, they don't believe in private property. So, which is it? Is your car or house private property? Also, as you say, they only want to nationalize key industries, not all corporations.

Fear mongering is fun. I understand. It gives you something to do. But, you are going to have a very difficult time holding up the examples of Western Europe and scaring people. Those just aren't scary places.

[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?

"Democratic Socialism" is not about building roads. It's about stuff like "universal basic income", "free health care", "free education" and everything else under the sun that you want, so you call it a "basic human right". To pay for it, you just decide you'll tax at a progressive rate and you'll institute a "death tax" because it's for "the greater good".

"Democratic Socialism" is also about instilling decision makers for central planning in federal departments that cannot be replaced, so no matter WHO is "democratically" elected, your agenda of the redistribution of income for "the greater good" goes forward. It's about a Utopian vision of cradle to grave benefits of anything you want.... and if a few eggs need to be broken to get there, so be it.

It's iron-fisted top-down rule of the economy an d the political and social narrative, so that there are equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.


You go read the ten point of the communist manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) from 1848 and THAT is the agenda of today's democrat party, word for word.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

"Democratic Socialism" is not about building roads. It's about stuff like "universal basic income", "free health care", "free education" and everything else under the sun that you want, so you call it a "basic human right". To pay for it, you just decide you'll tax at a progressive rate and you'll institute a "death tax" because it's for "the greater good".

"Democratic Socialism" is also about instilling decision makers for central planning in federal departments that cannot be replaced, so no matter WHO is "democratically" elected, your agenda of the redistribution of income for "the greater good" goes forward. It's about a Utopian vision of cradle to grave benefits of anything you want.... and if a few eggs need to be broken to get there, so be it.

It's iron-fisted top-down rule of the economy an d the political and social narrative, so that there are equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.


You go read the ten point of the communist manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) from 1848 and THAT is the agenda of today's democrat party, word for word.

You were doing pretty good until you got to the bolded. Then you revealed yourself as just another lunatic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

DP, and I'll take you on.

I want to focus specifically on the socialistic idea, which you support, of the government (e.g., other people) providing college educations to Americans. Your reasoning is that otherwise, college graduates are left with decades of debt, which in turn has other negative consequences.

I, on the other hand, know that there are alternatives to heavy college debt that do not involve a new entitlement program,- or OPM. There are a multitude of paths by which a resourceful, motivated student can obtain an affordable education. Following are some possibilities:

1) Attend community college for the first two years, and cut total costs almost in half
2) Do well in community college and earn an academic transfer scholarship
3) Explore all sorts of scholarships, available for every group/interest under the sun. This too can cut the bill in half.
4) Get federal grants
5) Get state grants
6) Take advantage of a co-OP education program, which alternates "work semesters" with ".classroom semesters" - and graduate after five or six years with little to no debt
7) Explore tuition-free schools (yes, they exist, although very competitive)
8) Cut the time in college by taking exams for "credit" (of material one has already mastered)
9) Get a job with an employer with tuition reimbursement
10) Get a FT job with the univeristy you want to attend, as you can often take free classes on a part-time basis

I could go on, but you get the idea. There is much a student can do to make college affordable. Even if the above doesn't eliminate all debt, it reduces it to a manageable level. The point is that the answer doesn't have to be "have the government pay for college."

(Full disclosure: I've had an extensive background in higher education funding.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

I suggest that you enroll in a remedial reading class because you obviously suffer from an inability to comprehend simple English. None of those quotes rule out private property altogether. Again, have you ever been to Western Europe? Have you even read a good book about the region? There is no lack of private property in any of those countries. What the DSA does support is the elimination of corporate control of those industries necessary to ensure the basic functions of living. Why should healthcare be operated according to capitalist principles? If I developed the cure for cancer, would you rather that I price it where I could achieve the highest marginal rate of return or at the lowest price possible to reach the largest number of cancer patients? Capitalists believe the former even though it makes medicine unaffordable to many. Socialists put people before profits.

Ironically, Trump has just been tweeting about how he is telling pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. Are you attacking Trump for his socialist actions?

College educations these days leave graduates with decades worth of debt that prevent many from being able to save for a home purchase which in turns causes many to delay marriage and families. Capitalists are just fine with this reality, while socialists believe that an educated society is a better society and education should be made affordable.

Go ahead and argue that only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education and see what happens to your electoral fortunes.

DP, and I'll take you on.

I want to focus specifically on the socialistic idea, which you support, of the government (e.g., other people) providing college educations to Americans. Your reasoning is that otherwise, college graduates are left with decades of debt, which in turn has other negative consequences.

I, on the other hand, know that there are alternatives to heavy college debt that do not involve a new entitlement program,- or OPM. There are a multitude of paths by which a resourceful, motivated student can obtain an affordable education. Following are some possibilities:

1) Attend community college for the first two years, and cut total costs almost in half
2) Do well in community college and earn an academic transfer scholarship
3) Explore all sorts of scholarships, available for every group/interest under the sun. This too can cut the bill in half.
4) Get federal grants
5) Get state grants
6) Take advantage of a co-OP education program, which alternates "work semesters" with ".classroom semesters" - and graduate after five or six years with little to no debt
7) Explore tuition-free schools (yes, they exist, although very competitive)
8) Cut the time in college by taking exams for "credit" (of material one has already mastered)
9) Get a job with an employer with tuition reimbursement
10) Get a FT job with the univeristy you want to attend, as you can often take free classes on a part-time basis

I could go on, but you get the idea. There is much a student can do to make college affordable. Even if the above doesn't eliminate all debt, it reduces it to a manageable level. The point is that the answer doesn't have to be "have the government pay for college."

(Full disclosure: I've had an extensive background in higher education funding.)

My son just graduated from high school and will enter college this Fall. So, funding college has been much on our minds recently. We are doing many of the things on your list. Certainly individual students can do the things you list, but I can't imagine that even you believe these things will solve the problem for every prospective college student. There are limits to everything you listed, especially federal and state grants which you may as well not bother listing for most students.

Just like healthcare, every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college. Americans like to view themselves as exceptional, but we are exceptionally unable to do things that other countries are able to do. Just how long are we going to put up with this situation?