Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[MumblesBadly]

Mumbles, Reagan was very appealing to the masses and seemed to make sense to swing voters, especially ones frustrated with the government's various failures in the 70s.

AOC has tons of extreme and ill-informed ideas which don't play well with middle-ground voters. Even if she excites some additional young people to vote at a higher rate, she will lose more swing voters compared to a more traditional Democratic candidate.

A young, exciting candidate isn't a bad idea, but it has to be one who is intelligent, informed, and non-extreme. AOC is the clueless, idealistic college student whose ideas won't play well with mainstream America, especially when they come from a place of ignorance.

You don’t get it. “Middle ground voters” never were the the folks she is going to help her fellow Dems rally to the polls. It’s about reaching and rallying the millenials. AOC may say things from a place of ignorance, but it doesn’t matter if the people she appeals to are just as ignorant, or ignore her mistakes because they believe that she is “one of them”. Because that use of tribalism is what has brought the GOP much success at the polls despite the tons of dumb shit they have said over the years. Christ!!! The GOPers with the strongest pull at the polls say jaw-droppingly stupid things about the age of the earth and dinosaurs being alive at the same times as humans, shit that signals their fielty to fundamentalist Christians belief, who come out in droves to vote for them.

Also, when Reagan first won the White House, most political observers, and many within his party, thought he was “extreme”. Hell! George H.W. Bush called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics”. And he was right! But enough of the public was fooled by the nonsense he was spouting, in large part because of his personality.

[RS_]

What if Judge Judy ran in the primaries against Trump? Would she make it close or even win?

Would obviously have to hear her positions on stuff, but based on her show (Judge Judy), i would probably agree with many if not all of her positions. If so, I’d definitely vote for her in 2024 election.

[MrTickle]

Can someone give me an example of an “extreme” AOC policy idea?

[gimmick]

Can someone give me an example of an “extreme” AOC policy idea?

First 2 pages of google gave the 70% marginal tax rate as one. It's been few days since Gates "criticized" it so it's being spun in to something. Gates said it's too easy to avoid and the way it's done has negative consequences. So it's better to tax wealth directly since it's harder to dodge. Gates also wasn't in favor of just printing money as a solution to every deficit because of long term implications.

I think the 70% thingies extremism was first sold as something voters wouldn't get behind with. And then when it was polled that they do get behind with it was refuted as of course they would get behind it because reasons. Apparently reasons became a thing between the introduction and polling of the proposal.

Oh and how that 70% shifted from moderate to extreme in 40 years i don't really know. Maybe there's more trickling now or it's something to do with dancing on rooftops. Internal logic with American politics and media is often hard to pin down. It's almost always stupid, but exact kind of stupid varies a lot so it's harder to find.

[blake]

Can someone give me an example of an “extreme” AOC policy idea?

is this you setting up one of your socialism is not extreme rants

[MrTickle]

Can someone give me an example of an “extreme” AOC policy idea?

is this you setting up one of your socialism is not extreme rants

No, I just haven’t heard one extreme policy yet. Just tell me one.

[blake]

is this you setting up one of your socialism is not extreme rants

No, I just haven’t heard one extreme policy yet. Just tell me one.

the discussion -- at least the one i've been having wasn't whether her policies are "extreme" -- but whether the things she says are idiotic.

i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute. if it is, let me know and i'll point some out for you.

also to question whether her policies are "extreme" may be the wrong way of putting it. for example, she wants to be zero net greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years, which is a great goal.

but how yould you get there in a way that's not financially ruinous to the country? she has no ideas on how to achieve this. if you've actually heard her speak, you'll be even more alarmed.

her green new deal page talks about moving to all electric cars and replacing air travel with high speed rail everywhere. it laments "cows farting", with the implication being that meat eating needs to be cut down. these goals are unattainable so if those are her "policies," yes they are extreme.

she wants to use the $3.4 billion in tax cuts that amazon would have received and invest that entirely non-existent money to go to schools, infrastructure, etc.

aside from her batshit crazy position that NY was subsidizing those amazon jobs, which is flatout embarrassing, some of her other stated reasons for opposing amazon were because it would cause gentrification and because she is against large companies getting taxpayer subsidies.

those are bad policy positions. no one was more in favor of amazon coming in, per polling, than black and hispanic communities, who saw the potential for good jobs. as for taxpayer subsidies, on principle, she rejected $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue because amazon wanted an offset of $3.4 billion. this is a terrible policy position and caused real harm to new yorkers. i'd say this is an extreme position and reflects a failure to even understand market forces, economics and capitalism.

[gimmick]

is this you setting up one of your socialism is not extreme rants

No, I just haven’t heard one extreme policy yet. Just tell me one.

This might get crickets.

I been trying to piece this together in the last few hours. Such as looking up what she means with her Green New Deal. Social democrat stuff with a tint of green things. I think Americans think that is extreme. For reference to any American readers Social Democrats are considered very slightly to the left of center. That is because in Europe there are actual Socialist Parties. Our Green Parties also have some power so we've heard about their arguments for decades.

Oh and apparently the airplanes in 10 years thingie was a quip about clean energy first before renewable. I think some Americans think that meant she's in favor destroying their only way to travel long distances. It was about supplementing with non-renewable energy till you can find alternatives.

[gimmick]

I now have an half an idea what you've been talking with AOC and NY.

You don't gain anything, when States/Cities compete with each other using tax incentives to companies, as a nation. It merely subverts more resources to very few. If, you're in favor of corporate socialism, this is a great way to strengthen that. You can even sprinkle stupid math to it to make it look like a net positive.

Say Charlie and Montgomery compete with each other on who gets Rosemary's action. Charlie offers 3 billion and Montgomery offers 2 billion. The value of Rosemary's action is 27 billion. When Charlie "wins" that's a gain of 24 billion, right. Nope. If, Rosemary doesn't have a choice but to choose one of the 2, then paying her 3 billion to make that choice is a loss of 3 billion.

If, that's not clear, then lets say after the Rosemary deal, Mathilda offers her action worth 27 billion to highest bidder. This time Montgomery wisened from the past offers 3 billion and "wins" 24 billion. Now we've made 48 billion. Chaching. Nope. Had Charlie and Montgomery avoided competing with each other they would have 54 billion as a result. It's as if they'd made 6 billion by doing nothing. It's because they would have made 6 billion more by doing nothing.

[limitles]

No, I just haven’t heard one extreme policy yet. Just tell me one.

This might get crickets.

I been trying to piece this together in the last few hours. Such as looking up what she means with her Green New Deal. Social democrat stuff with a tint of green things. I think Americans think that is extreme. For reference to any American readers Social Democrats are considered very slightly to the left of center. That is because in Europe there are actual Socialist Parties. Our Green Parties also have some power so we've heard about their arguments for decades.

Oh and apparently the airplanes in 10 years thingie was a quip about clean energy first before renewable. I think some Americans think that meant she's in favor destroying their only way to travel long distances. It was about supplementing with non-renewable energy till you can find alternatives.

No kidding. I mean she does look batty but let's not get upset just yet. She is talking about education and the environment so I can listen to that.
Those are important topics. Stay on topic. The environment should not be a left right talking point, same obviously with healthcare and education.
That's kinda where the U.S. drops in the rankings.


edit:

BTW, never say this or that can't be afforded? What are horrible line of defence that is.

[gimmick]

The math kinda works with tax incentives, if we're talking about a once in a lifetime deal. But we aren't, are we? It's every major deal. It's just burning tax payers money when you look at it as a whole.

[gimmick]

This might get crickets.

I been trying to piece this together in the last few hours. Such as looking up what she means with her Green New Deal. Social democrat stuff with a tint of green things. I think Americans think that is extreme. For reference to any American readers Social Democrats are considered very slightly to the left of center. That is because in Europe there are actual Socialist Parties. Our Green Parties also have some power so we've heard about their arguments for decades.

Oh and apparently the airplanes in 10 years thingie was a quip about clean energy first before renewable. I think some Americans think that meant she's in favor destroying their only way to travel long distances. It was about supplementing with non-renewable energy till you can find alternatives.

No kidding. I mean she does look batty but let's not get upset just yet. She is talking about education and the environment so I can listen to that.
Those are important topics. Stay on topic. The environment should not be a left right talking point, same obviously with healthcare and education.
That's kinda where the U.S. drops in the rankings.


edit:

BTW, never say this or that can't be afforded? What are horrible line of defence that is.

Environment wasn't much of a talking point even for "left" before AOC. Referring to 2020 campaign trail. At least now there's some talk about it. Almost none of it in good faith arguments, but still.

One way to AOC is to assume she's 30ish, has a degree in economics and often uses shortcuts when explaining her position. She assumes the listener knows very little (classic mistake in American politics) and she assumes the listener doesn't think she's the purest form of evil. She's also someone that went from completely unknown to most publicized Democrat in no time. For every 10 hours of film there's an hour that sounds she's saying something stupid. She's isn't careful enough in avoiding out of context comments and questions that are fishing for a negative sound bite.

Oh and out of that hour of stupid things bout 50 minutes gets cleaned if you bother to look for what she meant.

[blake]

I now have an half an idea what you've been talking with AOC and NY.

You don't gain anything, when States/Cities compete with each other using tax incentives to companies, as a nation. It merely subverts more resources to very few. If, you're in favor of corporate socialism, this is a great way to strengthen that. You can even sprinkle stupid math to it to make it look like a net positive.

Say Charlie and Montgomery compete with each other on who gets Rosemary's action. Charlie offers 3 billion and Montgomery offers 2 billion. The value of Rosemary's action is 27 billion. When Charlie "wins" that's a gain of 24 billion, right. Nope. If, Rosemary doesn't have a choice but to choose one of the 2, then paying her 3 billion to make that choice is a loss of 3 billion.

If, that's not clear, then lets say after the Rosemary deal, Mathilda offers her action worth 27 billion to highest bidder. This time Montgomery wisened from the past offers 3 billion and "wins" 24 billion. Now we've made 48 billion. Chaching. Nope. Had Charlie and Montgomery avoided competing with each other they would have 54 billion as a result. It's as if they'd made 6 billion by doing nothing. It's because they would have made 6 billion more by doing nothing.

that's great conceptually, but in the real world, rosemary does have other choices -- much like every company does when choosing where to incorporate or reside (which is why trump's MAGA ideas will fail).

rosemary can go somewhere else like amazon will, if it wants to.

how has new york benefitted by her principled stance?

[MumblesBadly]

Anyone here familiar with the “Overton window”? It is related to the notion that what policies the public deems as “reasonable” lies within a “window” along the various political dimensions, while policies outside of the Overton window are generally deemed by the public as extreme. But that window is not static. It shifts over time depending upon both events and concerted media campaign by political actors.

For example, Ronald Reagan was instrumental in shifting the Overton window towards conservative ideals, including a very hard line towards the Soviets. In fact, he spooked even his own advisors by leaving that Iceland summit with Gorbechev refusing to a deal that would require him to give up the Strategic Defense Initiative. Most experts, including his own foreign policy team, thought his position on the matter was dangerously extreme. But when the Soviet Union unexpectedly collapsed a few years later, he was hailed as a genius and the stance he had taken was then publicly perceived as reasonable.

And while the following vid clip from The Young Turks doesn’t explicitly mention the Overton window, it does discuss how Bernie Sanders has helped shift public opinion about policy ideas that once were deemed extreme.



Why do I mention this? Because even if the exact policies AOC champions are objectively unreasonable, her passion and effectiveness is championing them will almost certainly shift the Overton window on those policy domains. And that prospect likely has conservative talking heads setting to explode.

[blake]

No kidding. I mean she does look batty but let's not get upset just yet. She is talking about education and the environment so I can listen to that.
Those are important topics. Stay on topic. The environment should not be a left right talking point, same obviously with healthcare and education.
That's kinda where the U.S. drops in the rankings.


edit:

BTW, never say this or that can't be afforded? What are horrible line of defence that is.

Environment wasn't much of a talking point even for "left" before AOC. Referring to 2020 campaign trail. At least now there's some talk about it. Almost none of it in good faith arguments, but still.

in fairness, obama was a huge advocate for the environment throughout his campaign and presidency

[gimmick]

No, I just haven’t heard one extreme policy yet. Just tell me one.

the discussion -- at least the one i've been having wasn't whether her policies are "extreme" -- but whether the things she says are idiotic.

i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute. if it is, let me know and i'll point some out for you.

also to question whether her policies are "extreme" may be the wrong way of putting it. for example, she wants to be zero net greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years, which is a great goal.

but how yould you get there in a way that's not financially ruinous to the country? she has no ideas on how to achieve this. if you've actually heard her speak, you'll be even more alarmed.

her green new deal page talks about moving to all electric cars and replacing air travel with high speed rail everywhere. it laments "cows farting", with the implication being that meat eating needs to be cut down. these goals are unattainable so if those are her "policies," yes they are extreme.

she wants to use the $3.4 billion in tax cuts that amazon would have received and invest that entirely non-existent money to go to schools, infrastructure, etc.

aside from her batshit crazy position that NY was subsidizing those amazon jobs, which is flatout embarrassing, some of her other stated reasons for opposing amazon were because it would cause gentrification and because she is against large companies getting taxpayer subsidies.

those are bad policy positions. no one was more in favor of amazon coming in, per polling, than black and hispanic communities, who saw the potential for good jobs. as for taxpayer subsidies, on principle, she rejected $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue because amazon wanted an offset of $3.4 billion. this is a terrible policy position and caused real harm to new yorkers. i'd say this is an extreme position and reflects a failure to even understand market forces, economics and capitalism.

Mr.Tickle is taking his time so i'll pick these up.

I hope i already explained how you lose 3.4 billion when you "pay" it to Amazon. That position is based on understanding market forces, economics and capitalism. It's kinda basic.

We can't sustain the current levels of meat eating with growing population. None of it is extreme. If western trend in this among others is adopted by the 3rd world, we're fucked. I hope this isn't the first time when you hear about this. Fairly little research is required to say, yup we're fucked. Kinda basic.

If we don't replace current levels carbon emissions, we're fucked. And that likely means we need to phase out of fossil fuels. The way we do private and public transportation is not sustainable. We either fix that or seize to exist. Kinda basic.

And how to fund everything that needs to be done sadly isn't even on the list of 100 things that needs to be cleared to move even roughly towards the right direction. Not funding isn't really an option we have. We either take care of this or seize to exist. With a variety environmental thingies, the Amazon deal is just a long term losing proposition. How we divide resources does play into this, but it's still something we can build around.

[limitles]

Anyone here familiar with the “Overton window”? It is related to the notion that what policies the public deems as “reasonable” lies within a “window” along the various political dimensions, while policies outside of the Overton window are generally deemed by the public as extreme. But that window is not static. It shifts over time depending upon both events and concerted media campaign by political actors.

For example, Ronald Reagan was instrumental in shifting the Overton window towards conservative ideals, including a very hard line towards the Soviets. In fact, he spooked even his own advisors by leaving that Iceland summit with Gorbechev refusing to a deal that would require him to give up the Strategic Defense Initiative. Most experts, including his own foreign policy team, thought his position on the matter was dangerously extreme. But when the Soviet Union unexpectedly collapsed a few years later, he was hailed as a genius and the stance he had taken was then publicly perceived as reasonable.



And while the following vid clip from The Young Turks doesn’t explicitly mention the Overton window, it does discuss how Bernie Sanders has helped shift public opinion about policy ideas that once were deemed extreme.


Why do I mention this? Because even if the exact policies AOC champions are objectively unreasonable, her passion and effectiveness is championing them will almost certainly shift the Overton window on those policy domains. And that prospect likely has conservative talking heads setting to explode.

This is cogent.

At Trump rallies, "reporters" took aside the pro Trumpians and laid before them
the platform of Black Lives Matter
And they invariably agreed with everything included
in that package
Just unaware

[gimmick]

I now have an half an idea what you've been talking with AOC and NY.

You don't gain anything, when States/Cities compete with each other using tax incentives to companies, as a nation. It merely subverts more resources to very few. If, you're in favor of corporate socialism, this is a great way to strengthen that. You can even sprinkle stupid math to it to make it look like a net positive.

Say Charlie and Montgomery compete with each other on who gets Rosemary's action. Charlie offers 3 billion and Montgomery offers 2 billion. The value of Rosemary's action is 27 billion. When Charlie "wins" that's a gain of 24 billion, right. Nope. If, Rosemary doesn't have a choice but to choose one of the 2, then paying her 3 billion to make that choice is a loss of 3 billion.

If, that's not clear, then lets say after the Rosemary deal, Mathilda offers her action worth 27 billion to highest bidder. This time Montgomery wisened from the past offers 3 billion and "wins" 24 billion. Now we've made 48 billion. Chaching. Nope. Had Charlie and Montgomery avoided competing with each other they would have 54 billion as a result. It's as if they'd made 6 billion by doing nothing. It's because they would have made 6 billion more by doing nothing.

that's great conceptually, but in the real world, rosemary does have other choices -- much like every company does when choosing where to incorporate or reside (which is why trump's MAGA ideas will fail).

rosemary can go somewhere else like amazon will, if it wants to.

how has new york benefitted by her principled stance?

You can say New York doesn't benefit from this deal, but if this is a standard practice then it's a part of taxation. You might as well just write it in.

In the real world you get your shit together. Now you're letting corporations divide you. I think conquering comes after that. You control the worlds most lucrative market of 300 million souls. Start acting like it. Why would you ever negotiate from a position of weakness. If corporations aren't willing to play by your rules, let them eat a dick. Make them pay taxes on markets they fuck with. Remove the option of working outside US with access to your market. Doing anything else is just retarded.

[blake]

the discussion -- at least the one i've been having wasn't whether her policies are "extreme" -- but whether the things she says are idiotic.

i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute. if it is, let me know and i'll point some out for you.

also to question whether her policies are "extreme" may be the wrong way of putting it. for example, she wants to be zero net greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years, which is a great goal.

but how yould you get there in a way that's not financially ruinous to the country? she has no ideas on how to achieve this. if you've actually heard her speak, you'll be even more alarmed.

her green new deal page talks about moving to all electric cars and replacing air travel with high speed rail everywhere. it laments "cows farting", with the implication being that meat eating needs to be cut down. these goals are unattainable so if those are her "policies," yes they are extreme.

she wants to use the $3.4 billion in tax cuts that amazon would have received and invest that entirely non-existent money to go to schools, infrastructure, etc.

aside from her batshit crazy position that NY was subsidizing those amazon jobs, which is flatout embarrassing, some of her other stated reasons for opposing amazon were because it would cause gentrification and because she is against large companies getting taxpayer subsidies.

those are bad policy positions. no one was more in favor of amazon coming in, per polling, than black and hispanic communities, who saw the potential for good jobs. as for taxpayer subsidies, on principle, she rejected $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue because amazon wanted an offset of $3.4 billion. this is a terrible policy position and caused real harm to new yorkers. i'd say this is an extreme position and reflects a failure to even understand market forces, economics and capitalism.

Mr.Tickle is taking his time so i'll pick these up.

I hope i already explained how you lose 3.4 billion when you "pay" it to Amazon. That position is based on understanding market forces, economics and capitalism. It's kinda basic.

We can't sustain the current levels of meat eating with growing population. None of it is extreme. If western trend in this among others is adopted by the 3rd world, we're fucked. I hope this isn't the first time when you hear about this. Fairly little research is required to say, yup we're fucked. Kinda basic.

If we don't replace current levels carbon emissions, we're fucked. And that likely means we need to phase out of fossil fuels. The way we do private and public transportation is not sustainable. We either fix that or seize to exist. Kinda basic.

And how to fund everything that needs to be done sadly isn't even on the list of 100 things that needs to be cleared to move even roughly towards the right direction. Not funding isn't really an option we have. We either take care of this or seize to exist. With a variety environmental thingies, the Amazon deal is just a long term losing proposition. How we divide resources does play into this, but it's still something we can build around.

i don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the environment. i'm not a climate change denier. my only objection on AOC's positions are that the things she puts on paper sound "extreme" or, at the very least, unrealistic and possibly giving rise to trump's second term.

i may have missed your point re amazon, so i'm not sure if i'm responding to it. i think you're saying that corporate welfare is bad generally and leads to less governmental funds generally when each state/country competes with each other in a race to the bottom.

i get that. but my issue is that we don't control the playing field. in other words, what new york didn't want to offer, another state will, which leads to the loss of jobs to her constituents. the states didn't get together and agree to not offer incentives.

if i missed your amazon point, please feel free to ignore.

[blake]

that's great conceptually, but in the real world, rosemary does have other choices -- much like every company does when choosing where to incorporate or reside (which is why trump's MAGA ideas will fail).

rosemary can go somewhere else like amazon will, if it wants to.

how has new york benefitted by her principled stance?

You can say New York doesn't benefit from this deal, but if this is a standard practice then it's a part of taxation. You might as well just write it in.

In the real world you get your shit together. Now you're letting corporations divide you. I think conquering comes after that. You control the worlds most lucrative market of 300 million souls. Start acting like it. Why would you ever negotiate from a position of weakness. If corporations aren't willing to play by your rules, let them eat a dick. Make them pay taxes on markets they fuck with. Remove the option of working outside US with access to your market. Doing anything else is just retarded.

you are going 100% trump on us. these are literally his talking points but they are also fantasy.

these anti-competitive denial of markets moves, tariffs, etc. don't work.