Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[AshG]

Let's take the hyperbole out of the conversation for a moment and reduce the discussion to its base elements.

Both parties operate on addressing the fears of their constituents. For the right, it's the protection of personal liberty and national security. For the left, it's personal liberty and national security. The difference is how each side articulates those issues.

I understand quite a bit of the left's side of the coin. Being in ridiculous amounts of still-piling-up medical debt limits my ability to experience the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enshrined in our founding documents. A platform of healthcare reform is enticing, especially if it means lower costs for my family and having money to replenish our savings.

I can't buy in on the right, though, because I haven't seen the right offer anything other than vague ideas that may or may not work and would likely make those in my condition more expensive to insure and treat. I want to see serious, committed, quality plans from the right that treat the chronically ill and disabled as something more than collateral damage.

That's just one issue out of many that involves discussion of personal liberty and safety. Before you blow a shotgun round through the chest of the other side's positions (that includes you too, lefties) I encourage you to see things from the position of the people who may find greater promise and security in that side's platform.

The right is not all Bible-thumping ammosexuals and the left is not all freeloading open-border hippies. There's plenty of room for conversation in between.

 

[joevol33]

Let's take the hyperbole out of the conversation for a moment and reduce the discussion to its base elements.

Both parties operate on addressing the fears of their constituents. For the right, it's the protection of personal liberty and national security. For the left, it's personal liberty and national security. The difference is how each side articulates those issues.

I understand quite a bit of the left's side of the coin. Being in ridiculous amounts of still-piling-up medical debt limits my ability to experience the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enshrined in our founding documents. A platform of healthcare reform is enticing, especially if it means lower costs for my family and having money to replenish our savings.

I can't buy in on the right, though, because I haven't seen the right offer anything other than vague ideas that may or may not work and would likely make those in my condition more expensive to insure and treat. I want to see serious, committed, quality plans from the right that treat the chronically ill and disabled as something more than collateral damage.

That's just one issue out of many that involves discussion of personal liberty and safety. Before you blow a shotgun round through the chest of the other side's positions (that includes you too, lefties) I encourage you to see things from the position of the people who may find greater promise and security in that side's platform.

The right is not all Bible-thumping ammosexuals and the left is not all freeloading open-border hippies. There's plenty of room for conversation in between.

The problem I see in the left, they don't want in between. The more radical left, the more popular in the party. Did you see the sotu? The woman from Arizona clapped once for trump, and an older democrat told her to watch her butt. If you're not screaming"f" trump and Republicans, they don't want to hear your voice.

 

[37L1]

Of course it is. But politics is rarely, if ever, about policy. Most people are products of the time they grew up in. A lot of people who are inclined to believe AOC grew up being told their whole life they had to go to college, so they borrowed a ton of money and "followed their heart" when choosing a major, even if it wasn't practical, often at the encouragement of parents, guidance counselors, etc. And now that they are done with college, a lot of them can't find a job that pays enough to pay the debt off.

They are young, immature, and typically inexperienced in the ways of the world anyway, so what do a bunch of them end up concluding? The system is unfair and government can fix it. I'm not saying they are right, but I do see why they believe it. What I do hope is that over time they come to understand that their perceived savior, the government, actually has a lot to do with the student loan predicament they are in. IMO, the student loan issue has a huge amount to do with shaping the current left-leaning politics of the 18-29 crowd. And if you aren't in student debt yourself, you know a buddy who is, so you sympathize with it.

This is how I see it and kind of how I saw it before I grew older and hopefully wiser:

Young educated Americans are generally idealists who believe they, themselves, are good people and because they are good, so is most everyone else, because, after all, we are all just the same. Those who aren't doing good things to others are just a product of their poor environment and are not bad, just misunderstood and hurt by others so you can't blame them. If only the environment is changed for them, then they too will become good people. No personal responsibility here, it's the environment, so the environment has to be changed. The system, as now constituted, is responsible for people who do bad things.

When you are young and have nothing; have these ideals and see others, usually older others, that have so much while so many have so little, why, that just isn't right. When you struggle to make ends meet and can't have what you need and want, it just isn't fair. Plus our society is materialistic and "flaunts" luxury in their faces. Never mind that you could strive to obtain "things", for now, they can't have them. Once again, It's Not Fair!

To them it's a simple problem, inequity is unfair, and they are all about fairness (particularly if they are to benefit). Everyone deserves an equal piece of the pie, why should only a small percentage have most of the pie? These thoughts are constantly reinforced by those we put in charge of education and pandered to by the emerging Leftist wing of the Democrat Party. So much so, the current crop of Presidential candidates from that party seem to be trying to out do themselves as to how far Left they swing. Bernie has now become mainstream.

No longer are we teaching the Puritan/Protestant Work Ethic,(work hard, save and be disciplined to get ahead) we are teaching Socialist Principles (doesn't matter what you do, the government will take care of you). The current system (Capitalism) isn't working for them right now. Give me my stuff! Socialism tells them what they want to hear, "Here's your 'free' stuff."

 

[GVF]

I can tell you that your use of irony was incorrect. Lol.

I guess we can't expect everyone to have paid attention in 6th grade literature.

I used it the way I intended to use it. If you want to whip it out to measure education, I can hang tight with anyone. My usage of irony continues to prove itself valid, as you are still in a thread you are criticizing as useless.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Let's take the hyperbole out of the conversation for a moment and reduce the discussion to its base elements.

Both parties operate on addressing the fears of their constituents. For the right, it's the protection of personal liberty and national security. For the left, it's personal liberty and national security. The difference is how each side articulates those issues.

I understand quite a bit of the left's side of the coin. Being in ridiculous amounts of still-piling-up medical debt limits my ability to experience the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enshrined in our founding documents. A platform of healthcare reform is enticing, especially if it means lower costs for my family and having money to replenish our savings.

I can't buy in on the right, though, because I haven't seen the right offer anything other than vague ideas that may or may not work and would likely make those in my condition more expensive to insure and treat. I want to see serious, committed, quality plans from the right that treat the chronically ill and disabled as something more than collateral damage.

That's just one issue out of many that involves discussion of personal liberty and safety. Before you blow a shotgun round through the chest of the other side's positions (that includes you too, lefties) I encourage you to see things from the position of the people who may find greater promise and security in that side's platform.

The right is not all Bible-thumping ammosexuals and the left is not all freeloading open-border hippies. There's plenty of room for conversation in between.

They left don't give two ***** about national security. They don't believe in border security, they're for open borders. They want to decrease the defense budget at every turn. They want to bring in and try to assimilate our enemies. They are anti-America and view patriotism as racist. They condone fascism by legitimizing ANTIFA. They are definitely are not about nation security.

 

[05_never_again]

This is how I see it and kind of how I saw it before I grew older and hopefully wiser:

Young educated Americans are generally idealists who believe they, themselves, are good people and because they are good, so is most everyone else, because, after all, we are all just the same. Those who aren't doing good things to others are just a product of their poor environment and are not bad, just misunderstood and hurt by others so you can't blame them. If only the environment is changed for them, then they too will become good people. No personal responsibility here, it's the environment, so the environment has to be changed. The system, as now constituted, is responsible for people who do bad things.

When you are young and have nothing; have these ideals and see others, usually older others, that have so much while so many have so little, why, that just isn't right. When you struggle to make ends meet and can't have what you need and want, it just isn't fair. Plus our society is materialistic and "flaunts" luxury in their faces. Never mind that you could strive to obtain "things", for now, they can't have them. Once again, It's Not Fair!

To them it's a simple problem, inequity is unfair, and they are all about fairness (particularly if they are to benefit). Everyone deserves an equal piece of the pie, why should only a small percentage have most of the pie? These thoughts are constantly reinforced by those we put in charge of education and pandered to by the emerging Leftist wing of the Democrat Party. So much so, the current crop of Presidential candidates from that party seem to be trying to out do themselves as to how far Left they swing. Bernie has now become mainstream.

No longer are we teaching the Puritan/Protestant Work Ethic,(work hard, save and be disciplined to get ahead) we are teaching Socialist Principles (doesn't matter what you do, the government will take care of you). The current system (Capitalism) isn't working for them right now. Give me my stuff! Socialism tells them what they want to hear, "Here's your 'free' stuff."

Well said. One thing I will say is that capitalism needs better marketing. Socialism (Dem Socialism, or socialist-type politics, or social justice rhetoric) has great marketing right now. It also fits in really well with their life experiences. It seems consistent with, and a solution to, life as they see it.

Much of socialist or socialist-type policies are borne out of flawed precept that economics is a zero sum game.

 

[Grand Vol]

So, you think her being indicative of the future is funny, but the notion that there are millions her age who think like her is scary...

Yeah, dude. That's a straight up contradiction, so which is it?

No, I think it's funny the DNC was so eager to embrace her as the "young, hip" future that they really didn't look past the packaging before making an announcement. Caveat Emptor. Yes, that's funny to me.

The notion she thinks this way is scary. The notion that others will so blindly follow her idiocy is scary.

 

[Septic]

The problem I see in the left, they don't want in between. The more radical left, the more popular in the party. Did you see the sotu? The woman from Arizona clapped once for trump, and an older democrat told her to watch her butt. If you're not screaming"f" trump and Republicans, they don't want to hear your voice.

YOU LIE!

 

[37L1]

YOU LIE!

Isn't that a "whataboutism" that you constantly rail against?

Ironic.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

 

[AM64]

Silly girl, huh?

I mean, she holds public office and is getting more attention from both sides than any freshman representative in quite some time.

OK, a silly girl with a post. That post turtle thing keeps coming back around. You of all people should know that attention isn't always a positive thing.

 

[Septic]

Isn't that a "whataboutism" that you constantly rail against?

Ironic.

Even a modicum of reading comprehension would have benefitted you here. The poster I was responding to was pointing out that it was only the left that screeched and used the sotu as evidence. This isn't a whataboutisim, it's a direct refutation of an ill-advised argument. Please try to pay attention.

 

[AM64]

Of course it is. But politics is rarely, if ever, about policy. Most people are products of the time they grew up in. A lot of people who are inclined to believe AOC grew up being told their whole life they had to go to college, so they borrowed a ton of money and "followed their heart" when choosing a major, even if it wasn't practical, often at the encouragement of parents, guidance counselors, etc. And now that they are done with college, a lot of them can't find a job that pays enough to pay the debt off.

They are young, immature, and typically inexperienced in the ways of the world anyway, so what do a bunch of them end up concluding? The system is unfair and government can fix it. I'm not saying they are right, but I do see why they believe it. What I do hope is that over time they come to understand that their perceived savior, the government, actually has a lot to do with the student loan predicament they are in. IMO, the student loan issue has a huge amount to do with shaping the current left-leaning politics of the 18-29 crowd. And if you aren't in student debt yourself, you know a buddy who is, so you sympathize with it.

I like your theory. It sounds a lot like the game the Chinese (communists) are playing. They go around the world doing projects "for" countries paid for by loans those countries can never repay to the Chinese. Then the Chinese own them and start appropriating parts of the country. It's a lot like all the old "deals with the devil" lore. Maybe Satan is just simply the original socialist. I guess to the mentally weak, socialism sounds wonderful ... the problem is always the devil in the details and mindless people who never consider the future cost of free stuff.

 

[LouderVol]

Let's take the hyperbole out of the conversation for a moment and reduce the discussion to its base elements.

Both parties operate on addressing the fears of their constituents. For the right, it's the protection of personal liberty and national security. For the left, it's personal liberty and national security. The difference is how each side articulates those issues.

I understand quite a bit of the left's side of the coin. Being in ridiculous amounts of still-piling-up medical debt limits my ability to experience the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enshrined in our founding documents. A platform of healthcare reform is enticing, especially if it means lower costs for my family and having money to replenish our savings.

I can't buy in on the right, though, because I haven't seen the right offer anything other than vague ideas that may or may not work and would likely make those in my condition more expensive to insure and treat. I want to see serious, committed, quality plans from the right that treat the chronically ill and disabled as something more than collateral damage.

That's just one issue out of many that involves discussion of personal liberty and safety. Before you blow a shotgun round through the chest of the other side's positions (that includes you too, lefties) I encourage you to see things from the position of the people who may find greater promise and security in that side's platform.

The right is not all Bible-thumping ammosexuals and the left is not all freeloading open-border hippies. There's plenty of room for conversation in between.

As unfortunate as your situation is, what is happening is that healthy Americans are being shackled with the medical costs of others. But instead of it being "our" debt that is keeping us from experiencing life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it is someone else's. That isn't fair. If it helps 5% but screws over another 5% have you really helped?

You may have been screwed by life, but there is no need to drag others down with you. especially when you consider the massive debt this country is under already. As you make more people more dependent on the government the more "too big to fail" it becomes. we aren't at single payer yet, but what happens when we go all Venezuela and the government stops paying its bills, everyone gets screwed. If we had kept private insurance as the option, and our country goes the way of Venezuela most Americans, that already had insurance, wouldn't be completely screwed as they would on the opposite end. Independence and freedom are foundations of this country, you can't steal it from some to give it to others.

any socialized program (read everything the government does so not just healthcare) relies on a ponzi scheme to work. it only works as long as there is a promise of more money coming in tomorrow than there is today. which is all well and fine if things are going good. but once it stops working, it all comes crashing down. Imagine the single payer health care system during a shut down. can hospitals stay afloat for a month?

one idea that I haven't seen floated is essentially a Health Saving Account being provided by the government, instead of getting into the insurance side of things. Drop Medicare/aid/ACA requirements on Insurance. The only people who can access it are those with true emergencies who honestly need a helping hand for a while, your case, but its not a long term thing that everyone leaches from. There would have to be an application/acceptance process which would suck, but we are talking the government.

the other option I have seen tossed out there is "universal catastrophic coverage". government provided insurance that only covers real life threatening issues. again drop Medicare/aid. being sick isn't the end of the world. having a life threatening/changing issue could be.

or my personal favorite, drop all the taxes going to the government, but instead that amount gets dropped into a true HSA for each citizen. SS could be done the same way. So for the healthy I am still helping others pay, but I have a guaranteed pot of money I can get into as I need later in life. but this would require personal responsibility, as I could spend more than I have, but it guarantees everyone something. again getting it out of the governments hands, so politicians can't take it away, mess with it, or make it a political tool.

 

[37L1]

Even a modicum of reading comprehension would have benefitted you here. The poster I was responding to was pointing out that it was only the left that screeched and used the sotu as evidence. This isn't a whataboutisim, it's a direct refutation of an ill-advised argument. Please try to pay attention.

Nice spin, it's still a whataboutism and you got caught, please try not to deny the obvious. You are better than this.

 

[Septic]

Nice spin, it's still a whataboutism and you got caught, please try not to deny the obvious. You are better than this.

You swung and missed because you didn't understand and apparently.... still don't.

 

[37L1]

You swung and missed because you didn't understand and apparently.... still don't.

Did you ref the UK game the other night?

Oh I understand what the spin is on this alright. And I understand what your backstepping is also.

"YOU LIE" at the SOTU. Joe Wilson. . .

Rep. Wilson shouts, 'You lie' to Obama during speech - CNN.com

I know, a coincidence.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

OK, a silly girl with a post. That post turtle thing keeps coming back around. You of all people should know that attention isn't always a positive thing.

Me of all people, huh? Lol, speak for yourself.

 

[AM64]

They left don't give two ***** about national security. They don't believe in border security, they're for open borders. They want to decrease the defense budget at every turn. They want to bring in and try to assimilate our enemies. They are anti-America and view patriotism as racist. They condone fascism by legitimizing ANTIFA. They are definitely are not about nation security.

Of course, our budding socialists see money spent on the military as money that could have been spent on them. If we ever show them that money spent on illegal aliens is money they are missing out on, they will be rioting in the streets for a wall ... as soon as they can revise Trump history.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

No, I think it's funny the DNC was so eager to embrace her as the "young, hip" future that they really didn't look past the packaging before making an announcement. Caveat Emptor. Yes, that's funny to me.
.

Ah, so nothing that I originally mentioned.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I used it the way I intended to use it. If you want to whip it out to measure education, I can hang tight with anyone. My usage of irony continues to prove itself valid, as you are still in a thread you are criticizing as useless.

And it stands as fact that your intended use was still incorrect.

Stay blessed!

 

[Grand Vol]

Ah, so nothing that I originally mentioned.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No problem. I aim to please.

 

[Septic]

Did you ref the UK game the other night?

Oh I understand what the spin is on this alright. And I understand what your backstepping is also.

"YOU LIE" at the SOTU. Joe Wilson. . .

Rep. Wilson shouts, 'You lie' to Obama during speech - CNN.com

I know, a coincidence.

Are you really this dense? I've already explained to you why you're wrong, a little conceptual reasoning here would serve you well - are you a graduate of the @tumscalcium school of how to make a bad argument and claim victory? This has nothing to do with Rep Wilson and everything to do with pointing out the flaw in the posters argument that it's only the dems who engage in sotu screeching.

If you want to run this up the pole however, whataboutisims are an attempt to justify bad behavior with bad behavior, except that no ones actually engaged in actual sotu screeching except for Mr. Wilson.

 

[37L1]

Are you really this dense? I've already explained to you why you're wrong, a little conceptual reasoning here would serve you well - are you a graduate of the @tumscalcium school of how to make a bad argument and claim victory? This has nothing to do with Rep Wilson and everything to do with pointing out the flaw in the posters argument that it's only the dems who engage in sotu screeching.

If you want to run this up the pole however, whataboutisims are an attempt to justify bad behavior with bad behavior, except that no ones actually engaged in bad behavior except for Mr. Wilson.

Yes, that's a whataboutism. But not when you do it, do I have that right now?

 

[Septic]

Yes, that's a whataboutism. But not when you do it, do I have that right now?

Geezus, maybe you really are that dense.

Is every refuted argument citing actual evidence a whataboutisim to you?

Look, clearly, you didn't and still don't understand the argument. Instead of continuing to shine a light on the turd you left on the living room floor, walk away and in time people will forget you were here.