You have to be joking. If the person making the argument doesn’t believe it then why should I?
The easy out. Shame this has become a tactic recently. Bad faith or not, the argument is the same.
So her constituents are electing her out of symbolism since you’re saying she has no way of implimenting the things she’s campaigning on?
You have to be joking. If the person making the argument doesn’t believe it then why should I?
So that's the line, once she in power and has the ability to enforce such a disgusting thing, that's when you'll start to worry. A little late dont you think. While I agree that is a bit too soon to start the comparisons to Trump, its amazing the jump to defend her, and the excuses being made by people how have ZERO direct knowledge. Its like they are worried she will be as anti-press as Trump is and want to get a jump on the defence. While its a little early to compare her to Trump, her supporters on this issue are very Trump supporter like; defending an action just because its your player that's doing it. I have not followed her except to know her name and that she is an admitted socialist. So what's she doing might be perfectly OK and as someone said these meetings are outliers and do not represent the norm. suppose for just a minute that these are a test to determine how her followers will accept her not permitting the press to cover her, and instead of accusing the press of being the enemy of the people, she just does not allow them in? I really dont think she has a shot, but how do people from one party accept the same thing from their team that they spend so much time complaining about the other side doing?Here's the difference:
While this move is problematic, Ocasio-Cortez ultimately believes in the value of a free press. Trump doesn't. He's the one who declared the free press the "enemy of the people" and would genuinely prefer that the media be reduced to an echo chamber that always agrees with whatever he says. You can make claims of hypocrisy when Ocasio-Cortez starts threatening to revoke TV networks' broadcast licenses... you know, like Trump did.
You have to be joking. If the person making the argument doesn’t believe it then why should I?
I’m making the arguement and I’m not a Republican and yeah I do care the gov is digging itself in a deep financial hole. So...
So that's the line, once she in power and has the ability to enforce such a disgusting thing, that's when you'll start to worry. A little late dont you think. While I agree that is a bit too soon to start the comparisons to Trump, its amazing the jump to defend her, and the excuses being made by people how have ZERO direct knowledge. Its like they are worried she will be as anti-press as Trump is and want to get a jump on the defence. While its a little early to compare her to Trump, her supporters on this issue are very Trump supporter like; defending an action just because its your player that's doing it. I have not followed her except to know her name and that she is an admitted socialist. So what's she doing might be perfectly OK and as someone said these meetings are outliers and do not represent the norm. suppose for just a minute that these are a test to determine how her followers will accept her not permitting the press to cover her, and instead of accusing the press of being the enemy of the people, she just does not allow them in? I really dont think she has a shot, but how do people from one party accept the same thing from their team that they spend so much time complaining about the other side doing?
Then presumably you have been religiously voting against the Republicans in every election for the last 30 years, right?
I sincerely doubt this. I suspect you have said you oppose debt while voting for the most fiscally irresponsible party we have.
Because she's not doing the same thing that the other side is doing.
so you voted to blow up the budget.
Unfortunately it seems like yeah. If I had a do-over I’d abstain from voting or write in someone. Hindsight is 20/20.
Ocasio is campaigning on blowing up the budget. An enormous increase at that, many trillions of dollars. I sorry but I’ll call her out on that.
She kicked out the press. Trump is being (correctly) attacked for doing the same thing. "It was just once" isn’t an excuse. SNC is correct, y’all are running d for your player just like a Trumpkin.
She kicked out the press. Trump is being (correctly) attacked for doing the same thing. "It was just once" isn’t an excuse. SNC is correct, y’all are running d for your player just like a Trumpkin.
Unfortunately it seems like yeah. If I had a do-over I’d abstain from voting or write in someone. Hindsight is 20/20.
Ocasio is campaigning on blowing up the budget. An enormous increase at that, many trillions of dollars. I sorry but I’ll call her out on that.
Bullshit. I'm not saying that Ocasio-Cortez's decision was great (it certainly doesn't have good optics), but if you think a short-term exclusion is the exact same thing as Trump repeatedly demonizing the press, marginalizing media outlets at press conferences and publicly wishing he could revoke TV licenses for networks... that's quite sad.
Please stop equivocating. If she was going to make a habit of kicking out the press, then you would have an argument; but she isn't, so you don't.
You'll call her out on the cost of policies that you have no idea how they will impact the budget or the country fiscally and even with 20/20 hindsight you would sit out the 2016 election?
Lol! You are dumber than I thought!
Both are Socialism in action. Just because it wasn't a wanted or desired outcome doesn't make it any less the responsibility of Socialism. Much like a Democrat/Socialist banning the free press from a public event, it's just the way socialists work.
No one really knows how much it will cost, but the study she cited for healthcare raises the Fed budget by up to $40 trillion over the next 10 years. The rich will pay for it though amirite? Right now half the country pays no federal taxes, so they have no skin in the game on whatever it cost. I’m definitely for a progressive tax structure where the well off pay a higher percent (why I’m against a flat tax or federal sales tax), but you can only soak half the country for so much before they break. Ultimately it gets put on the Fed gov's American Express card.
Lovely, our kids will be thrilled.
Their concern about a relatively obscure politician, who has never even been elected to office and has no actual power, rather than the President of the United States, isn't just tribalism. It's a phenomenon of cognitive dissonance that I first observed way back when I worked in sales. I'd provide the estimate to the clients and, almost invariably, they'd complain over the smallest fee in the cost breakdown, rather than the big ticket items. And the greater the sticker shock, the more likely this would happen. This is much the same thing.I must have missed that time she declared the press to be the enemy of the people...
No one really knows how much it will cost, but the study she cited for healthcare raises the Fed budget by up to $40 trillion over the next 10 years. The rich will pay for it though amirite? Right now half the country pays no federal taxes, so they have no skin in the game on whatever it cost. I’m definitely for a progressive tax structure where the well off pay a higher percent (why I’m against a flat tax or federal sales tax), but you can only soak half the country for so much before they break. Ultimately it gets put on the Fed gov's American Express card.
Lovely, our kids will be thrilled.
In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.
Oddly enough, everybody pays much lower federal tax rates than in 1980, particularly the Rich. The true Bush constituency has been winning at class warfare since Reagan, and it shows. They've really put the ol' spicy chorizo to the rest of America, big time. This is what it looked like prior to the most recent GOP tax cuts-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-real/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2267790be99c
Another illuminating article for you to ignore-
You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth - Vox
Of course Progressives would raise taxes at the top to pay for social programs. It's a matter of economic self defense for the non-Rich.
Never said we didn’t. The tax cuts were completely irresponsible. Spending is what needs to be cut. Progressives are going to have to raise taxes on everyone considerably, not just the top, if we are going to implement something that cost $40 trillion over the next 10 years. Thinking that you can pay for it out of just the wealthy is naive. The half the country not paying anything think yeah this sounds great, but they'll be in for sticker shock when they see their paycheck shrink considerably to pay for it.
I get this place is an echo chamber that thinks government is the answer to everything, but much of America doesn’t want to see the size of Fed gov grow exponentially. You can find polls where people say yeah sounds great, but if you follow up and ask do you want to see the size of government triple or whatever it would be I think you’d see a lot less enthusiasm.