Because the wall is for the good of the nation while your personal education, housing and healthcare are only good for you?
I am glad she won. I prefer a world where the political divide, and debate, is between fiscal conservatism and democratic socialism. Far better than the status quo, where you have different flavors of corporate whores that gravitate to polarizing issues that do little to help America in aggregate.
One of the things I was thinking of was the forces keeping the current housing situation in place. Not everyone has the same goal as her. It seems to me impossible to imagine anyone, regardless of clout, could simply undo the current structure. Thus, there needs to be something less ambitious, or in stages, etc.
Well I don't expect her to have legislation drafted, but I would like some detail on how she might suggest going from point A to point B. I'll agree that there's a lower bar for preparedness in platform for a Congress than President. But the bar ought to be something more substantive than this poster.
Basically all I've been trying to get across is this:
- Regardless of the merit of these ideas, they couldn't be implemented easily or completely
- I want to see what she thinks about that -- whether there's actually any understanding, appreciation, and plan for working on what she would like to do
And that's all I'm saying. All I've seen is what's written here. There may be a whole lot of substance behind her. But I'm not going to support her with zero substance. And I don't understand why that's a little ridiculous.
If Trump thought Crowley wasn't respectful to him, just wait until he deals with a young Hispanic-American woman. She's effectively going to be giving him a permanent middle finger, and he will always deserve it.
I don't think not supporting her without seeing supporting substance is ridiculous but I think your statement that she potentially didn't know how congress worked was pretty unfair to her considering you have no reason to believe so.
We need to reduce the costs of health care the same way you propose we reduce the costs of education. Bring health care technology into the 21st century.Per my own policy:
- Education needs to be reformed via a program that competes with the vastly overpriced institutions that exist today. Become certified at 1/5th or 1/10th the cost. You do not need 100 million dollar campuses.
- Housing needs a program that'll step in and suck up properties under a resident's rights guarantee that'll accept lower income families and try harder to not force them out onto the streets. Combined with Basic Income, and NO ONE will be removed for lack of income.
- Healthcare need to be expanded like Medicare and is the second biggest expenditure behind Basic Income.
We need to reduce the costs of health care the same way you propose we reduce the costs of education. Bring health care technology into the 21st century.
I don't think not supporting her without seeing supporting substance is *(NOT) ridiculous but I think your statement that she potentially didn't know how congress worked was pretty unfair to her considering you have no reason to believe so.
What is wrong with "whether there's actually any understanding, appreciation, and plan for working on what she would like to do"?
He put that in a context that means he wants to know if she understands and or appreciates, and or has a plan for doing what she would like to do.
However, what I was referring to is not so much whether something aligned with the ideas per se could practically work. What I was referring to is how things in government work. A 28-year-old junior Congressperson is not going to waltz in and implement a radically progressive agenda regardless of how good her plan is.
Well said. The two parties forever have been the two sides of the same coin. Both use dog whistles and nothing else to appease their bases. While the people themselves continue to get screwed over. They are both corporate whores as you pointed out.
This is why the only genuine debate is between Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. And there have been one or two.
No, he said this:
There is little to zero reason to think that someone who has won a contested primary for US Congress does not know how government works and would think that a 28 year old junior Congressperson was going to waltz in and implement a radically progressive agenda. It's obvious she knows that's not the case.
Not sure what the confusion is here.
This is why the only genuine debate is between Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. And there have been one or two.
Who's gonna pay for all that? Should her promises be kept, somehow...the makers will move on, deserting the takers. Socialism doesn't work. There is only a certain amount the taxpayers will stand for. Yes, we support our schools, police, fire dept, etc., through taxes, but at some point we won't want to pay for everything, especially if it causes a lower standard of living for people living at or below middle class. So the ideas might sound great, but if those ideas were really acceptable and feasible, Bernie Sanders would be president today. Seems to me some Americans have given up on simply working for what you have and are hoping the politicians expand benefits, so they don't have to produce and work as much for what they think they're entitled too. It's bullshit.
Sure, putting people into re-education camps is good for country.
I think we can have genuine debates between "Fiscally Conservative" Democrats and "Socialist" Democrats.
No, he said this:
There is little to zero reason to think that someone who has won a contested primary for US Congress does not know how government works and would think that a 28 year old junior Congressperson was going to waltz in and implement a radically progressive agenda. It's obvious she knows that's not the case.
Not sure what the confusion is here.
Its perfectly reasonable. I know how government works in the sense of a layperson, but that is totally different than understanding how the government works from a position that she would occupy.
Further, how is it obvious that she has the knowledge? She might be able to attain it, or she might not. It might also be true that her plan comes up against things she did not know and it would need to be modified. What he is saying is that because there is nothing in terms of specifics and we know very littler about her and how she would do things, he is holding a skeptic position. You are saying his position is wrong, but, I see no reason to why that is.
You’re right, why didn’t I think of these things. Does she know how to get to Washington DC? Can’t implement your agenda if you can’t find the capital. I have no way of knowing if she can use google maps or not so it’s a reasonable question to ask. Is she literate? Can’t write a bill if you can’t write! I don’t know one way or the other so it’s a reasonable question to ask.
See how silly you’re being? You’re running into that problem again where you have difficulty understanding things that are implicitly obvious. I have never heard this question of basic understanding raised without cause in the past with other candidates. In this case it is unlikely that someone who interned in Senator Kennedy’s immigration office lacks a basic understanding of how legislating in Congress works. If he (and you) didn’t know that about her then you began questioning her competence without learning even the slightest thing about her, which is also unreasonable.
I can’t believe this had to be explained. Yet again. Let me guess though, you’re going to continue to doggedly insist that it’s reasonable until I throw my hands up in boredom and frustration.
You’re right, why didn’t I think of these things. Does she know how to get to Washington DC? Can’t implement your agenda if you can’t find the capital. I have no way of knowing if she can use google maps or not so it’s a reasonable question to ask. Is she literate? Can’t write a bill if you can’t write! I don’t know one way or the other so it’s a reasonable question to ask.
See how silly you’re being? You’re running into that problem again where you have difficulty understanding things that are implicitly obvious. I have never heard this question of basic understanding raised without cause in the past with other candidates. In this case it is unlikely that someone who interned in Senator Kennedy’s immigration office lacks a basic understanding of how legislating in Congress works. If he (and you) didn’t know that about her then you began questioning her competence without learning even the slightest thing about her, which is also unreasonable.
I can’t believe this had to be explained. Yet again. Let me guess though, you’re going to continue to doggedly insist that it’s reasonable until I throw my hands up in boredom and frustration.
Yes, "historically" , not now.
so, you're illiterate?
Is there any specie left called fiscally conservative democrat? My understanding is there are no more.