DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

There seem to be assumptions that he was talking strictly about her platform when he said Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem Party. While in some areas there is solid support for pieces of her platform, like Medicare for All and state school tuition, loan forgiveness etc, I think what he meant was that young people, women, and people of color are the future of the Democratic Party. With that, I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

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

Obscurity, say hello to your new BFF: the Democratic Party.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Yes, her positions are incompatible with private property rights. Just implementing taxes so you can have your dream utopia (free healthcare, a government job for everyone, free education, housing as a human right, etc., etc.,etc.) through "the collective" is not what the founders envisioned.

Why should anyone bother working? So they can pay 80% of their pay check to her to spend as she sees fit? It's childish nonsense. You realize there are economic realities and money doesn't grow on trees, right?



I'm surprised you even had to ask the question.

Jeff, can you answer this whilst you are at it? Do you believe in private property rights?

Yes, of course I believe in property rights. What kind of stupid question in that?

Straight from NYC DSA:

-Abolish profit
-Abolish prisons
-Abolish cash bail
-Abolish borders

https://twitter.com/nycDSA/status/1012808259818926080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1012808259818926080&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2018%2F06%2F30%2Fnew-york-city-democratic-socialists-call-to-abolish-ice-and-borders-and-prisons-and-profit-and%2F

These radically dangerous concepts must be rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Cortez should go and campaign for all those Democratic senators who are up for election in those red states.

After all, given that she is the "future of our party" according to Perez, let those voters in the red states see the Utopia that awaits them with the Democrats.

I don't see working people have problems with her policies point by point. Rich people? Not so much, but they are out numbered.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Yes, her positions are incompatible with private property rights. Just implementing taxes so you can have your dream utopia (free healthcare, a government job for everyone, free education, housing as a human right, etc., etc.,etc.) through "the collective" is not what the founders envisioned.

Why should anyone bother working? So they can pay 80% of their pay check to her to spend as she sees fit? It's childish nonsense. You realize there are economic realities and money doesn't grow on trees, right?



I'm surprised you even had to ask the question.

Jeff, can you answer this whilst you are at it? Do you believe in private property rights?

Yes, of course I believe in property rights. What kind of stupid question in that?

I didn't ask. But I think it's a fair question:

- in a thread on Ocasio-Cortez, and

- when the actual chair of the DNC has publically stated Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the DNC.

So will the DNC oppose ownership of private property as a national platform plank in the future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, you have to confiscate private property to pay for her positions.

Is this rocket surgery?

No, you are spreading propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone watched her interview on Israel Palestine issues? I have hard time to believe she graduated from college. Yeh, yeh, instead yes. Bleh

It actually exposed her as a neophyte who knows little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you have to confiscate private property to pay for her positions.

Is this rocket surgery?

Clariification: You earn income (that is private property). Part of that is taken to fund the legitimate functions of government.

Then there's the "wish list" which is not Constitutional and yes, downright socialistic.

Just because someone wants stuff doesn't mean they are entitled to it. Just because the "collective" wants it doesn't make them entitled to it.

Everybody is entitled to have enough to not go hungry, and not die young from an infection.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Yes, her positions are incompatible with private property rights. Just implementing taxes so you can have your dream utopia (free healthcare, a government job for everyone, free education, housing as a human right, etc., etc.,etc.) through "the collective" is not what the founders envisioned.

Why should anyone bother working? So they can pay 80% of their pay check to her to spend as she sees fit? It's childish nonsense. You realize there are economic realities and money doesn't grow on trees, right?



I'm surprised you even had to ask the question.

Jeff, can you answer this whilst you are at it? Do you believe in private property rights?

Yes, of course I believe in property rights. What kind of stupid question in that?

I didn't ask. But I think it's a fair question:

- in a thread on Ocasio-Cortez, and

- when the actual chair of the DNC has publically stated Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the DNC.

So will the DNC oppose ownership of private property as a national platform plank in the future?

Ocasio-Cortez does not oppose ownership of private property. You guys are living in la-la land. Please come back to reality.

Take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or nearly any Scandinavian country. Do you see a lack of private property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone watched her interview on Israel Palestine issues? I have hard time to believe she graduated from college. Yeh, yeh, instead yes. Bleh

It was painful. She had no clue what she was talking about. And why is the Israel/Palestine issue such a partisan topic and why exactly was it important enough to bring up in an interview at this point? Is the Israel/Palestine conflict important enough to any of you, as Americans, that a politician's position on the subject is something you consider when voting?

Really, after Trump, it is hard to call anybody ignorant.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Yes, her positions are incompatible with private property rights. Just implementing taxes so you can have your dream utopia (free healthcare, a government job for everyone, free education, housing as a human right, etc., etc.,etc.) through "the collective" is not what the founders envisioned.

Why should anyone bother working? So they can pay 80% of their pay check to her to spend as she sees fit? It's childish nonsense. You realize there are economic realities and money doesn't grow on trees, right?



I'm surprised you even had to ask the question.

Jeff, can you answer this whilst you are at it? Do you believe in private property rights?

Yes, of course I believe in property rights. What kind of stupid question in that?

I didn't ask. But I think it's a fair question:

- in a thread on Ocasio-Cortez, and

- when the actual chair of the DNC has publically stated Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the DNC.

So will the DNC oppose ownership of private property as a national platform plank in the future?

Ocasio-Cortez does not oppose ownership of private property. You guys are living in la-la land. Please come back to reality.

Take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or nearly any Scandinavian country. Do you see a lack of private property?

Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

The US used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90% and that was during a time that many conservatives consider the golden age of American capitalism.

[Anonymous]

She is an idiot. It is refreshing to see how d mocrats seeing her as a future for their party.

[Anonymous]

Again, people here are making wild assumptions that Perez said Ocasio-Cortez was the future because of her platform as a Democratic Socialist. Progressives will not win office in every corner of the US, no one could sincerely argue they would. But in NY-14, it's a lot less surprising.

O-C *does* represent the future of the Democratic party - a future that is young, female, and/or people of color. And that future that is the only way Democrats will start really winning local and national elections around the US.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

The US used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90% and that was during a time that many conservatives consider the golden age of American capitalism.

We can agree that the U.S. has made many mistakes in the past; that does not mean we should repeat them.

And I noticed you left a few socialist countries off your list: namely Venezuela, Cuba, not to mention the defunct Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Socialism always fails.