The scary woman from Queens
Careful you might expand your horizons
https://youtu.be/dUmIdCClbTE |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Far too well spoken to be a moron
I assumed you would disagree with her and be afraid to even watch because she is 100% wrong about everything How dare she say money influences our politicians Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
During his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump repeated a claim he’d made several times before.
"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment," Trump said. "The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent." Comrade didn't say low unemployment was bad either, but he did question the numbers. Ocasio said the low numbers mislead people into thinking all is well. I am pretty sure that was a huge part of Trump's campaign, though she wasn't claiming 42% unemployment like Comrade. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
and again, an admitted, proud socialist. promising free college, free tuition, guaranteed income. no suggestions how to pay for it, by why obsess over silly little details. if she’s the future darling if the party, i will sleep well. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I've worked two jobs most of my 45 years in construction ....not complaining....I was told and believed that's how you get ahead and that's how I paid my mortgage off and raised two kids. I tell my kids the same......"if you want to get ahead....you will need to work a lot more than 40 hrs. a week!
|
Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election. and if so is 1 voice in Congress . But they are not worried or Afraid of the Current POTUS , and his actions and behavior and Policies
As much as Jim says the certain people are responsible for Trump . Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate Trumps gives Business promising free money , wants 100% Depreciation " I don't have to please Wall Street, and so I appreciate depreciation. For me the relevant issue isn't what I report on the bottom line, it's what I get to keep" equals guaranteed income. yet no suggestions how to pay for it |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
You could not be more wrong. I love her, I hope she gets the nomination to run for POTUS, maybe with Maxine Waters as her running mate. I think she's a moron, that doesn't mean I'm afraid of her. It's Nancy Pelosi, and the democratic establishment, who are afraid, because they know she's a ditz who will have zero appeal outside of NYC or San Francisco. Pelosi has spoken against her, because she knows this woman is going to hurt the party. "Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate" Oh I agree! It's evidence of how severely he has broken their brains. The GOP response to Obama, was the Tea Party. And this woman, is the left's response to Trump? We will see which pays better political dividends, but we all already know what the answer will be. |
Quote:
SHE is the one headlining fundraisers? A 26 year old who hasn't done a thing with her life? Trump's election was 18 months ago, and this is the best the democrats have got to trot out? Unbelievable. Where is their bench? |
George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump
By George F. Will | The Washington Post · Published: 1 day ago Updated: 21 hours ago Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!” A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.” Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law: “Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.” Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument. Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity. Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism. In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all. Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist. You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society. Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for? |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I did not compare one primary result to the national tea party creation. I compared the fact that the DNC is sending her to fundraisers all over the country, to the GOP tea party response. She is THE hottest rising star on the left right now, and it's a joke. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost. You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
the rate of unemployment of those 10 jobs is reported as Zero Same 10 Jobs same 5 people only working 1 of the 10 whats reported ??? it has an effect most likely statistically insignificant.. kinda of like your argument Warren pay equals higher cost to students most likely statistically insignificant. you were selling ..... but her Ideas crazy ok |
Quote:
the number of people looking for work who are not employed... divided by... the number of people working, plus (I think) the number of people looking but not working. If everyone who works takes a second job, that doesn't change the unemployment percentage. because no one is now working, who was previously unemployed. unemployment decreases, when someone who wasn't working yesterday, gets a job today. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com