Jump to content
LG6
politics

AOC gets straight to the point on government corruption

Featured Posts

TheQueenLG
27 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

It’s not socialism. Stop spreading false narratives. Also, America already runs government funded services and programs regardless.

She literally is part of the Democratic Socialists of America... That organization supports a complete transition to ONLY government-provided services... That would mean the elimination of our markets and competition. I'm not spreading false narratives. TBH,  you are. It most definitely is socialism.  I support MORE social services provided by the government. That said, the government should not control everything - that's bonkers. I support all the initiatives she has proposed but I will not sit here and keep quiet when her system would cause harm to America in the form of decreased innovation and efficiency. Pure socialism does not work. We just need more 'socialist' policies in the mix of our (currently) mostly-capitalist economy. 

Edited by TheQueenLG

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
9 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

She identifies as a socialist and that eliminates markets and competition... I don't agree with that. She supports transitioning to complete socialism which is so extreme that it doesn't exist anywhere on Earth today. It doesn't matter if her socialism is "democratic," it's still socialism that outlaws all capitalist ideals and that is a currently nonexistent economy. As I said, I support her initiatives and would gladly vote for them. We MUST transition to renewable resource immediately. I'm not the one you have to convince, sis. 

literally none of that is based on fact. Democratic socialists support a fully functioning market, WITH THE EXCEPTION of markets that threaten human living conditions. You need to do your research.

Edited by Matangi

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG
Just now, Matangi said:

literally none of that is based on fact.

Why don't you provide a receipt then? 

giphy.gif

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
5 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

Why don't you provide a receipt then? 

giphy.gif

there's no receipt needed, you just need to do proper research.

11 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

She literally is part of the Democratic Socialists of America... That organization supports a complete transition to ONLY government-provided services... That would mean the elimination of our markets and competition. I'm not spreading false narratives. TBH,  you are. It most definitely is socialism.  I support MORE social services provided by the government. That said, the government should not control everything - that's bonkers. I support all the initiatives she has proposed but I will not sit here and keep quiet when her system would cause harm to America in the form of decreased innovation and efficiency. Pure socialism does not work. We just need more 'socialist' policies in the mix of our (currently) mostly-capitalist economy. 

 

these are all straight up untrue.

 

 https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG
1 minute ago, Matangi said:

there's no receipt needed, you just need to do proper research.

these are all straight up untrue.

 

 https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt

TBH, I hadn't seen this and I find it very.... interesting. They advocate for outlawing capitalism while still saying we need markets for consumer goods. This organization appears to more confused than even AOC.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
3 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

TBH, I hadn't seen this and I find it very.... interesting. They advocate for outlawing capitalism while still saying we need markets for consumer goods. This organization appears to more confused than even AOC.

they don't once advocate for "outlawing" capitalism. I think you're mistaking them saying the market should be in the hands of the workers, (ie in Unions, collectives etc.) and not ONLY in a dozen corporations owned by a few people. That isn't outlawing capitalism, that's called regulating capitalism.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gagaloo92
1 hour ago, derpmonster said:

She is. But she won't get a lot of the undecided vote that determines elections sometimes. 

Unfortunately it's very easy to portray her as a "witch" or as annoying because 1. She is a woman 2. She uses exaggerated facial expressions - that's just how she is and people take screenshots of her with really unflattering looks to try to discredit her. And people are shallow so they go by looks.

She gives conservatives an allergic reaction just by existing and they can't get past "socialism bad" that has been fed into their minds as propaganda forever. 

Well who knows maybe by the time she can run domocratic socialism won't be viewed as bad. Socialism in general is trending more and more popular among the American electorate, especially among young people. 

And by the time she can run a lot of these young people will be able to vote or might actually turn out due to the excitement and energy AOC inspires. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
2 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Well who knows maybe by the time she can run domocratic socialism won't be viewed as bad. Socialism in general is trending more and more popular among the American electorate, especially among young people. 

And by the time she can run a lot of these young people will be able to vote or might actually turn out due to the excitement and energy AOC inspires. 

tea. her policies have immense support from the majority of americans.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gagaloo92
18 minutes ago, Matangi said:

tea. her policies have immense support from the majority of americans.

Even among Republicans AND Conservative Republicans. 

FOX NEWS POLLING literally shows that 70% of them support a 70% marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million, and 50-60% who support this on incomes over $1 million. 

That's really something. Americans support a lot of her policies. Congressional members who ignore or fail to realize and see this are out of touch with American people cause they're all in Washington with their millionaire and billionaire friends who are the ones who don't want this.. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG
43 minutes ago, Matangi said:

they don't once advocate for "outlawing" capitalism. I think you're mistaking them saying the market should be in the hands of the workers, (ie in Unions, collectives etc.) and not ONLY in a dozen corporations owned by a few people. That isn't outlawing capitalism, that's called regulating capitalism.

Let me check this out. I'm not opposed to being wrong. I believe that transition away from capitalism is part of their mission. I will gladly admit fault if I'm wrong. I WANT her to be right. But what I've seen has been negative. I will follow up on this. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG
50 minutes ago, Matangi said:

they don't once advocate for "outlawing" capitalism. I think you're mistaking them saying the market should be in the hands of the workers, (ie in Unions, collectives etc.) and not ONLY in a dozen corporations owned by a few people. That isn't outlawing capitalism, that's called regulating capitalism.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national

Check out this article written by DSA's Vice-Chair Jeff Stein

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering

I remember when Keith Oblermann predicted this would happen eight years ago when Citizens United was passed.

Six days after the Court’s decision, President Obama gave his State of the Union address. Picking up on the issue that Ginsburg had raised in the oral argumens-the possibility of foreigners buying influence in American election-the President declared, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” The Democrats in the chamber rose in a standing ovation as Obama continued, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.” 

 

I applaud her for standing against it with others, but campaign finance reform is nothing new. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
29 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I remember when Keith Oblermann predicted this would happen eight years ago when Citizens United was passed.

Six days after the Court’s decision, President Obama gave his State of the Union address. Picking up on the issue that Ginsburg had raised in the oral argumens-the possibility of foreigners buying influence in American election-the President declared, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” The Democrats in the chamber rose in a standing ovation as Obama continued, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.” 

 

I applaud her for standing against it with others, but campaign finance reform is nothing new. 

implementing real Campaign Finance Reform is new though. Just because Obama recognized the flaws in Citizens United did not stop him from being funded by corporations, PACs and special interests himself.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering
2 minutes ago, Matangi said:

implementing real Campaign Finance Reform is new though. Just because Obama recognized the flaws in Citizens United did not stop him from being funded by corporations, PACs and special interests himself.

Once it was in motion, to compete in a Presidential race, he had to use what others were allowed to use. It took him a billion dollars to win his reelection. That much wasn’t going to come from small donors. 

Campaign reform, in various forms, has been around for decades. Trying to get something done about Citizens United hasn’t been an option because of GOP control during the last six Obama years and the first two Trump years. 

Now that SCOTUS is weighted in the conservative direction, we might be stuck with it for a couple of more decades, or so. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matangi
7 hours ago, Whispering said:

Once it was in motion, to compete in a Presidential race, he had to use what others were allowed to use. It took him a billion dollars to win his reelection. That much wasn’t going to come from small donors. 

Campaign reform, in various forms, has been around for decades. Trying to get something done about Citizens United hasn’t been an option because of GOP control during the last six Obama years and the first two Trump years. 

Now that SCOTUS is weighted in the conservative direction, we might be stuck with it for a couple of more decades, or so. 

 

He didn't have to. And I don't blame him for it, because it was business as usual at that point. But it is absolutely possible and almost necessary for a democrat now to run a people funded campaign. Bernie Sanders has proved this.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...