Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The Future of the Democratic Party... enjoy

don't just make a blanket assertion, provide details


social programs still alive and kicking in the US include

• social security
• property tax to finance school, community colleges, certain universities,
• sales and gas tax to finance roads, airports, etc.
• obama care
• etc.

post WW2, not counting the Obama / Trump admin, the presidencies during which the GDP grew the most have been
the Reagan and Clinton presidencies.

the common thread, economically speaking, that binds these 2 presidencies together, has been the tax increase

 

Again, who said anything about working to earn a living?

People work all their lives, some people work 2 jobs, and still can't afford their medical bills.

Miss me with that.

 

It absolutely is true, in the same interview where she was forced to admit that she didn't know what she was talking about when it comes to the middle east she also went on talking about how "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist" the interviewer followed up by asking if democratic socialism calls for an end to capitalism and she said “Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it’s hard to say what direction that that takes"

You are the one lying about her man, I'm telling you what she admits to believing and what the beliefs of organizations she's proudly a member of are. She flat out is a socialist. She admits it freely, part of that is believing that all or nearly all of the ills of society are due to capitalism so they desire to topple that system eventually in order to install a socialist system.

I know that sounds batshit insane but it's really what she believes.

 

I know you aren't bright enough to follow along with this but a capitalist system having social programs is not the same thing as socialism. A captialist system with too many social programs can be inefficient, but an outright socialist system has never worked. In fact outright socialist systems have proven to lead to nothing but starvation and the death of massive numbers of people everywhere it has been tried.[/QUOTE]

 

The Russian bot, Bobbi small, at work

but his logarithm doesn't do economics; thus,
the only thing he knows about economics is that he doesn't understand it.​

 

If you weren't such a simpleton, your trolling would be more effective. Work on it.

 

your inability to give details underscores the fact that

you have no idea WTF ur talking about !

​

u need to ask the programmer in the Russian troll farm to beef up your algorithm/DNA to include the ability to understand economic

 

Is she old enough for VP? A ticket of Bernie and Alexandria could be compelling. LoL

 

no; POTUS and VP must be at least 35 yrs old

 

You've taken this conversation a bit out of context.

The conversation was how she felt about capitalism, which she said is the most efficient and evolved economy, then she started talking about automation, which meant that her mind, when asked about these questions, was on the distant future. She even said, "As we evolve..."

This isn't really that radical a position because it's all hypothetical anyway, plenty of futurists don't think a complete capitalistic economy is healthy for humanity.

IIRC was it Musk or someone else that predicted as automation continues we may have to give people universal income, because machines are taking a lot of jobs that normal everyday people do...and what do those people do with their lives? The moment she mentioned automation means she's talking about the future and that is an issue in the future, maybe not too distant, but it is an issue that capitalism will run into and it by itself won't fix it. She's taking the exact same position that Elon Musk took on this same issue, no one called him a socialist then but that is a very socialist position, no?

Here is the conversation.



Also, as she mentioned, she's a democratic socialist, which means that she's still for actually voting for things.

 

Bernie would just hold her back, he's not a true socialist, he just says he is sometimes because it seems he doesn't know the difference between being a Democratic Socialist and being a Social Democrat. I think the best VP candidate for Ocasio-Cortez would be Yvette Felarca.




Let's make this happen!

 

LOL she was making the case for "evolving" towards a socialist system, she said that maybe capitalism WAS the most efficient system and then talks about what she thinks the merits of a socialist system are and what some of the ills of capitalism are.

Also, when you talk about her being for voting for things....The people of Venezuela voted for their "Democratic Socialist" system too....

Honestly there's just no way you can spin her as anything but an absolute radical. She's a literal socialist. Deal with it.

 

Talk about a **** show for Americans.

One one side you have a lying, incompetent and corrupt wanna be fascist **** sandwich in Trump/Pence.

On the other hand you would have the creepy granola eating socialist nut ball Sanders and someone that would have been fighting along side Castro if you could drop her in Cuba 50 years ago.

 

Yep, because of automation. Again, this is basically what Musk says when he said that UBI will be necessary, he wasn't and isn't alone on that assertion.

Now, I'm sure some people will claim "UBI isn't socialism" and you can get into the technicalities of it is or if it isn't...but good luck finding socialists that wouldn't want it.

She said that it was but then we now have people that work 2 jobs and still live paycheck to paycheck, this is true.

Right, she mentioned the downsides of both, which isn't much different from socialist democrats of Europe that wanted to merge the two systems.

And so did Sweden.

And there is just no way you can spin her position into her wanting to end private business.

I'm not having this discussion again because I know definitions mean little to you when you want to be proven right but not all socialists want to run a state planned economy or a stalinist economy, It really is just that simple. There are levels to this ****.

 

We're the only industrialized country still having this debate. Seriously. We make this hard on ourselves.

Are you looking forward to Medicare when you retire? Or would you willingly give it up because it's a "handout"? Or could it be that if we expand the pool of health insurance to all Americans, via a "Medicare for All" or public option system, we free up capital for the rest of the economy?

I don't understand why conservatives, against all evidence to the contrary, believe that somehow the "freedom" to spend twice as much on healthcare as anybody else and allow individuals to go bankrupt in order to not die is somehow a better economic policy than providing health insurance to everyone and allowing them to spend their money elsewhere, start businesses and power more economic sectors than the insurance industry. The current system only benefits an industry that jockeys for "most hated in America" along with ISPs and cable providers, but somehow we're supposed to be grateful for the "freedom" to deal with them.

 

You just spun the same thing 2 different ways back to back....that's impressive.

So in order, no she's not just talking about automation, she believes capitalism is inherently oppressive and that's why she wants to change to a socialist system....because she's dumb enough to think that would be a good thing.

She didn't mention the downside to socialism....because she doesn't believe there is a downside to socialism. Also, there are exactly 0 socialist countries in Europe. There are some Social Democrat (It's not "Socialist Democrats") capitalist countries, but literally 0 socialist countries.....because socialism has never, and can never, actually work.

Sweeden is a capitalist country, not a socialist country.....I'm sure you know that, you just had nothing to go on so you posted this lie.

Yeah, no way I can do that other than point out that she's advocating for socialism which is a system where there is no private business and she's a member of an organization that seeks to end private business and switch to socialism. I'm not sure how I even came up with that idea other than her own statements and those of the organization she's a proud member of.....

This is just funny though given that you are the one ignoring definitions, not me. All socialists want to end private ownership of business and in practice that leads to a state planned economy even if that wasn't the initial idea. You keep bringing up Stalinism but you are the only one talking about that.

I'm not sure why you are doing these mental gymnastics in an effort to support this really stupid woman, but you should honestly stop. It's no use.

 

Well that's not really true, there are other countries having the debate, but pretty much every nation has realized that socialism simply does not work and that's why there are so few legitimate socialist countries left. Every successful nation has embraced capitalism because in human history it is the only system proven to work.

 

Social Conservative Warriors seems to have an unexpected fascination with an attractive Latino Democratic Congressional candidate.

The ladies doth protest too much, methinks.

 

I am having a bit of an internal conflict regarding these democratic socialists. On the one hand, I'm kinda sympathetic, on the other they want to nationalize my industry and put me out of a job. I can get another job, I'm not worried about that. But the problem is essentially that even if I'm aligned on goals generally, I don't trust them to execute with much wisdom. I think there is a form of socialism possible in which market forces are harnessed to drive efficiency. But, the only trick I can safely expect from a given socialist is the same one they had 200 years ago -- run the capitalists out and just have government do it. Their rhetoric has more complicated ideas in it -- like employee democracy within companies, worker-owned companies, etc -- but I just don't trust them to know how to get from here to there. The sort of economic transformation they are talking about won't take a generation. It'll take a century. I don't know if they really understand what they're asking and what it would take.

 

yet ur unable to name them