DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wants to flip a seat in Kansas City “RED in November.”............

https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1020468099152216064

PP.
I’m wondering if the New York voters would like a mulligan.

DP. What is going with on with her? She's a complete ignoramus! It just goes to show that if you promise gullible and clueless people "free stuff," they'll vote you in.

TBH - Only 13% of Democratic registered voters turned out in this primary. One has to wonder if this may have ended differently if more voters had turned out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

That's rather disingenuous of you to first ridicule the opinions of others by stating that "every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college", and then concede that it's an open question how restrictive it would be when challenged. I support free community college for all - anyone who wants to go should be able to go. More selective public universities should be barred from building expensive showy buildings that are not at the core of their mission to research and educate - 40 million dollar exercise club/gyms, indoor practice fields, etc. Furthermore there should be a requirement for public funded universities to rebate students any surpluses that the university runs at the end of the year - if they need to hold on to funding for future projects these must be approved by an oversight body and be actually used for that purpose.

These are good ideas. I hope they can be implemented.

My point about restrictions is being misunderstood because I didn't explain it well. Because we have a robust system of private colleges and universities for which, as far as I know, nobody is proposing to provide free tuition, the universe of college and university seats is not limited to those that would be government funded. If the government-funded slots were restricted, there would still be opportunities at private institutions. Moreover, as we see in the case of private K-12 schools, many students might not even consider the state schools regardless of price differences because they prefer the opportunities provided by private schools. As such, the need for restrictions in the US might not compare to the situation in other countries.

Right now, our system is geared so that poor (for free) and rich kids (full pay) can go to college, and MC folks have to scramble.
In your proposed system, you'd have rich kids still being able to go college either through the public option or full pay for the private option.
I would imagine fully subsidizing a public option would mean fewer government dollars available to private institutions which would mean fewer of them would be able to offer poor kids the option to go free. That would be limited to those private schools with healthy endowments. MC and poor kids would have a harder time affording private institutions.
Which would mean for the most part, poor, MC, and talented rich kids would all be competing for the same public options, leaving fewer opportunities for all but the rich, and more debt for poor and MC students if they can't make it into the public options.

Are we also going to follow in the foot steps of other countries by testing our tweens or young teens to determine which track they should be on? So a child at 12 yrs old can be shunted to the trades rather than professions, because he doesn't test as well?
Or do we use the SAT/ACT and offer public placement to the top 10% of test takers on each?
Or do we try to continue our cultural value of diversity, and try to make sure we have a good sex, race, age, religion, geographical, SEX mix as well as children who are academically capable?

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of the "witch" in Delaware. Making an ad saying "I'm not a witch" is pretty dumb, but this one is pretty dumb, too. She should avoid interviews and have scripts for public appearances. She has no understanding of government or economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^some of these kids with student loans go to Cancun for Spring break and beach weeks in the summer. This is not what loans are for.

Thank you for saying that. There was great abuse of Uncle Sugar's $$$. Now, there's pissing and moaning about the 1.3 Trillion in student loan debt.

Do you have a mortgage? Why are you going on vacation before paying off your debt?

We don't have a mortgage (anymore). We had a 30 year mortgage and paid it off in 12 years.

It wasn't the earnings side of the equation that did that; it was the spending side and especially willpower. We had to forgo a lot of stuff that other people just did.

One of the best things you can do is clear yourself of all debt. That means not eating out every night, getting your nails and hair done every week, forgo merry maids, more DIY and not getting the euro sedan... and not signing up for a mcmansion.

There's something to be said to putting off instant gratification. Now, what rolls in every month is all gravy. I highly recommend it.

BTW, we did that for ourselves because not having debt is great and the government didn't help us one bit.




We have slavery today, but it's not people picking cotton - it's people trying to keep up with the Joneses via mom and dad working 60 hours a week.

[Anonymous]

Time to revisit this thread. She’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time to revisit this thread. She’s not.

Feels good to be right. I was one of the first ones on this thread to say she was an idiot.
I can't believe democrats thought she would be influential anywhere outside the NYC. It shows how dense we are to what is going on outside of the bubbles of D.C., NYC, and CA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to revisit this thread. She’s not.

Feels good to be right. I was one of the first ones on this thread to say she was an idiot.
I can't believe democrats thought she would be influential anywhere outside the NYC. It shows how dense we are to what is going on outside of the bubbles of D.C., NYC, and CA

This thread is s perfect example of group think that occurs in dcum bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to revisit this thread. She’s not.

Feels good to be right. I was one of the first ones on this thread to say she was an idiot.
I can't believe democrats thought she would be influential anywhere outside the NYC. It shows how dense we are to what is going on outside of the bubbles of D.C., NYC, and CA

This thread is s perfect example of group think that occurs in dcum bubble.

+ 1 I've said before that some of these liberal posters should stop patting themselves on the back with their moral superiority, and their sanctimonious crap about "well WE want to help people," and get out into the real world.

[Anonymous]

She represents the most liberal and one of the most minority-heavy districts in the House.

The only ones constantly talking about Cortez are Republicans, who view her as an effective boogey-man to scare the sh#t out of suburban and rural white voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She represents the most liberal and one of the most minority-heavy districts in the House.

The only ones constantly talking about Cortez are Republicans, who view her as an effective boogey-man to scare the sh#t out of suburban and rural white voters.

Thus republicans started the thread that she’s the future of our party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She represents the most liberal and one of the most minority-heavy districts in the House.

The only ones constantly talking about Cortez are Republicans, who view her as an effective boogey-man to scare the sh#t out of suburban and rural white voters.

Thus republicans started the thread that she’s the future of our party?

Yes. She's the youngest national official for Democrats. I'm a D and even though I don't agree with all of her views, she's bringing in energy.

Perhaps Republicans should be a bit more centrist in their policies if they don't want to see an equally extremist backlash from young Democrats?

The GOP is more extremist today than they've been in their entire history: https://voteview.com/parties/all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She represents the most liberal and one of the most minority-heavy districts in the House.

The only ones constantly talking about Cortez are Republicans, who view her as an effective boogey-man to scare the sh#t out of suburban and rural white voters.

Ummmm it was the head of the DNC that said she is the future of our party. It was MSNBC (the democracy's communication department) that gushed over her constantly. It was whoever in democratic leadership who thought it would be an awesome idea to send out this green young woman to campaign in the middle of the country...

Yes republicans are testing her out as the new boogeyman now that President Obama is out of office but it was the Democrat's leadership fangirling her that was the real problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She represents the most liberal and one of the most minority-heavy districts in the House.

The only ones constantly talking about Cortez are Republicans, who view her as an effective boogey-man to scare the sh#t out of suburban and rural white voters.

Ummmm it was the head of the DNC that said she is the future of our party. It was MSNBC (the democracy's communication department) that gushed over her constantly. It was whoever in democratic leadership who thought it would be an awesome idea to send out this green young woman to campaign in the middle of the country...

Yes republicans are testing her out as the new boogeyman now that President Obama is out of office but it was the Democrat's leadership fangirling her that was the real problem here.

Are you equally as critical of DJT holding up extremist Chris Kobach as the "future of the party"? He's the other side of the same coin as Ocasio. He's looking to disenfranchise legitimate voters and has made that clear in his words and actions. Is that not an extremist position?

[Anonymous]

She Guevara is a god send to conservatives. She’s the epitome of the idiot leftist millennial generation. She is the face if the Democrat party and is a simply a new face on a failed ideology of socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats going to be a socialist party http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395436-dnc-chair-ocasio-cortez-represents-the-future-of-our-party?amp

conservatives are so hyperbolic

Conservatives intentionally conflate Western European-style modern "Socialism" with totalitarian collectivism a la Stalin or Mao.

At least, I hope it's intentional. If they actually believe that, then they're every bit as dumb as Progressives say they are.