Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
politics

AOC Launches New PAC Challenging DCCC 'Blacklisting'

Featured Posts

Florin

Maybe she should raise some money to beat Republicans. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
3 hours ago, Florin said:

Maybe she should raise some money to beat Republicans. 

So she raises as much money as possible to get elected...

This is different than every other politician how?

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
pachinko
14 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

This woman needs to be president. Challenge the norms, Queen. We love to see it. 

AOC as Bernie's VP.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
thehanyo

I like her but... a PAC? She's going to start accepting dark money? I don't like that.

  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
7 hours ago, thehanyo said:

I like her but... a PAC? She's going to start accepting dark money? I don't like that.

Not all PACs are inherently bad or funded with dark money. Maybe you're thinking of a Super PAC, which is actually a different type of thing, and not just a name we throw around :emma: 

Super PACs can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor unions.

PACs on the other hand are subject to state laws and FEC restrictions, which limits their funding.

For example, a super PAC that gets donations from billionaires anonymously is different than a group of teachers and union workers who start a PAC in order to support candidates who have good records with voting pro union, pro teachers, etc.

私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
thehanyo
On 1/15/2020 at 3:35 PM, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not all PACs are inherently bad or funded with dark money. Maybe you're thinking of a Super PAC, which is actually a different type of thing, and not just a name we throw around :emma: 

Super PACs can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor unions.

PACs on the other hand are subject to state laws and FEC restrictions, which limits their funding.

For example, a super PAC that gets donations from billionaires anonymously is different than a group of teachers and union workers who start a PAC in order to support candidates who have good records with voting pro union, pro teachers, etc.

Our Revolution is a Super PAC that Bernie illegally started and accepts dark money. Why does no one talk about this?

  • Like 1
  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
1 hour ago, thehanyo said:

Our Revolution is a Super PAC that Bernie illegally started and accepts dark money. Why does no one talk about this?

Oh look, a gotcha :emma:

Our Revolution is a bit more complex... but its not an illegal organization started illegally??? 

It does have some Super PAC esque elements to it, which include that it is not required to list its donors.

However, it often does and posts them on their website to my recollection because their stated goal is not to be a bunch of billionaires funding shady things in secret. They have a rule that I personally don't agree with, which respects if their donors want to remain anonymous or if they want their amount donated to be anonymous. I would rather they change this.

Some people more informed about this topic are fine with it but I don't remember what points they have made so far, this isn't something that keeps me up at night :rip: 

More OT: I support AOC making this PAC. We need to primary shitty Democrats and the DCCC's rule change is anti-democratic in principle, so this kind of thing is a necessary countermeasure.

Edited by ItsTommyBitch
私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
thehanyo
4 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Oh look, a gotcha :emma:

Our Revolution is a bit more complex... but its not an illegal organization started illegally??? 

It does have some Super PAC esque elements to it, which include that it is not required to list its donors.

However, it often does and posts them on their website to my recollection because their stated goal is not to be a bunch of billionaires funding shady things in secret. They have a rule that I personally don't agree with, which respects if their donors want to remain anonymous or if they want their amount donated to be anonymous. I would rather they change this.

Some people more informed about this topic are fine with it but I don't remember what points they have made so far, this isn't something that keeps me up at night :rip: 

More OT: I support AOC making this PAC. We need to primary shitty Democrats and the DCCC's rule change is anti-democratic in principle, so this kind of thing is a necessary countermeasure.

Sorry, sis, I have receipts from an unbiased source:

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

"Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as 'dark money.'"

 

Edited by thehanyo

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
On 1/14/2020 at 9:31 PM, Gagaloo92 said:

You're clearly pretty ignorant about her aren't you? Obviously don't know much except your own biases against her. 

As of now (according to https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/13/ocasio-cortez-campaign-cash-congress-098018

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised nearly $2 million over the final three months of last year, according to the star House freshman's campaign.

Ocasio-Cortez’s sizable cash haul — $1.97 million in the fourth quarter of 2019 and over $5.3 million for the entire year — is one of the largest revealed so far among members of Congress, and the size of her fundraising base will likely stoke speculation about the New Yorker's ambitions.

Her fundraising in the final quarter of the year is a dramatic increase compared to the total raised for her entire first election campaign in 2018, which came in at $2.1 million.

December was Ocasio-Cortez’s strongest month to date, with 120,000 contributions received and an average donation about $16.50.

----

Clearly, she's doing amazing and is raising record numbers compared to most of her colleagues. She's a strong performer in this and in individuals donors. 

I guess next time you should actually do your homework instead of coming with your own preconceived notions against her :ohwell:

By the way, there is a reason she goes against the norm. Because they don't work. The gap between the poor, middle class, and the rich is as big as it's almost ever been in American history. And she's in office because she took a stand and is there to fight against that.

And if she hadn't, she wouldn't be in office in the first place as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. 

@En_Sabah_Nurjust so you also know I have the receipts to show it and that AOC ain't going no where with her huge fundraising and donor numbers :kiss:

It's arbitrary. @Woolfsmck can be just as right as you

 

She's a love her or hate her kind of politian. Of course the strong supporters will contribute...

 

But Nations most popular politician could just as easily factor in a big number of people that don't like her

 

To me this is like arguing if in 2013 who was more popular Lady Gaga or Katy Perry

 

Gaga had a much more devoted fan base and even with touring and stuff could sell out faster. But she also had way more haters and Katy Perry was more popular with the General public

 

Cortez feels like a 2013 Lady Gaga to me. Very energizing to her base but not necessarily supported by the masses. 70% to 80% of people might have prefered Katy but then the 20% or 30% that prefered Gaga, a bigger portion of them might of been more devoted

 

Saying she's very popular is not wrong but saying she isn't also isn't wrong.

 

I think it literally depends which dynamic you guys are looking at. I don't think ur wrong but neither is Woogie

 

Saying who's among the most popular is not always back and white with an exact mathematical formula to make some kind of ranking

 

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
On 1/14/2020 at 9:05 PM, Gagaloo92 said:

 

But I guess that's not something you or politicians you support would be concerned with. 

Also I find this statement problematic.

 

One thing I don't like about some leftists (not all obviously) is they tend to assume that if u don't support certain candidates or policies it must mean you therefore don't care about the issues which I find very rude and condescending to assume of everyone who doesn't support something

 

For example in my end I don't agree with how far Bernie and Ocasio Cortez wanna take everything. And it isn't because the intent of the goals is at question. I literally just think some things would ultimately backfire and make things worse

 

It's not the goals I disagree with its the methods

 

That's my view tho I wanted to share tho. I can't speak for the user you were quotting

 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
2 hours ago, Economy said:

It's arbitrary. @Woolfsmck can be just as right as you

when it comes to opinion,  there really isn't a right or wrong , per se … 

there's all the proof yet the internet is littered with false info .. so …...

I look a policy and proposals mostly,  things like popularity and polls are ambiguous and really only show current trends ,   

kinda like watching a football game,  one team might look really great in the first quarter ,  but the final score won't always end up the way the trend is flowing early on....

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
2 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

when it comes to opinion,  there really isn't a right or wrong , per se … 

there's all the proof yet the internet is littered with false info .. so …...

I look a policy and proposals mostly,  things like popularity and polls are ambiguous and really only show current trends ,   

kinda like watching a football game,  one team might look really great in the first quarter ,  but the final score won't always end up the way the trend is flowing early on....

So do I. I don't think how popular a politician is necessarily proves how good or bad he or she is

 

Popularity can be a result if either media influence or a politician being relatable to people's issues...

 

But convincing ppl they are the best because they understand their problems and having policies that will actually work are two different things

 

I was merely commenting on the popularity factor cuz the conversation went there

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
1 hour ago, Economy said:

So do I. I don't think how popular a politician is necessarily proves how good or bad he or she is

 

Popularity can be a result if either media influence or a politician being relatable to people's issues...

 

But convincing ppl they are the best because they understand their problems and having policies that will actually work are two different things

 

I was merely commenting on the popularity factor cuz the conversation went there

To me AOC fits into this slot pretty well...

but politics is old and set … so her 'change' won't have that much impact...

some of her ideas are on the right track but timeline and implementation are a no go due to old school people in charge of the system....

plus the economic impact isn't really well thought out … 

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
PoshLife

In case anyone wants some facts, the DCCC outraised its Republican counterpart by $40 million - double the spread from 2017, the year before Dems took back the House in a huge blue wave.

We have a lot of seats to defend, and it's a presidential election year, but we're set up with the financial resources to protect our Frontliners and expand the map deeper into Republican territory. We're going to win big in 2020, with or without AOC's dues.

creek creek butter cartman yaoi kyle creek creek

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
33 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

To me AOC fits into this slot pretty well...

but politics is old and set … so her 'change' won't have that much impact...

some of her ideas are on the right track but timeline and implementation are a no go due to old school people in charge of the system....

plus the economic impact isn't really well thought out …

The problem with the economic side is that most people are too black and white with stuff...

 

They look at all the positives of their stance and ignore the offsets

 

The large minimum wage bump here a few years ago in Ontario proved both Leftists and Right Wingers alike wrong on their predictions and I already knew ahead of time what the result would be a lot more neutral than both ends were preaching about.

 

Every action has a positive effect and a negative unintended offset. Figuring out if on a net-basis it's more positive than negative can be the tricky part. Especially since depending on the circumstances at the time, what works in one case may not work as well in another case and depends on other factors too (that's why I think looking at a single historical example is bad proof)

 

When looking at economics and what the right amount of spending and taxation and regulations are there's a huge number of factors to consider:

 

- Global competitiveness

- what needs are most critical at the moment (for example higher taxes can hurt competitiveness but if there's a lack of affordable education crisis or poor infrastructure that also hurts competiveness

- individual circumstances. For example in EU a nation raising taxes a lot for rich like France did caused many rich to leave and backfired. The US is a much larger domestic economy that is not in a union. The negative offset of higher taxes on wealthy in USA circumstances may be less severe

- How well spent is the tax revenue? Raising Corporate taxes by 5% for example may hurt competitiveness by X amount but using the money on targeted educational programs may more than offset that, bit the same amount of money on military for example is just a pure drain

 

Like I can go on and on. There's 374864837369 factors to consider when trying to determine the net positive or net negative impact of an economic policy. Few individuals and even politicians bother to look at the big picture tho cuz politics to most people is not a fluid spectrum. It's a black and white set of ideas that each person has decided in their mind if it's good or bad and aren't willing to look beyond that

 

 

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...