dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Feb 19, 2019 3:34:39 GMT
And? My whole argument when I made that post today was that running a centrist candidate won’t allow the democrats to win. Clinton didn’t win. It’s pretty much universally agreed upon that Bernie would’ve won. Oh yeah, let’s also just leave out the fact that the DNC admitted to rigging the primary and the media kneecaping him every chance they got. Not like that didn’t have anything to do with it. Corbyn and Bernie exceeded everyones expectations by the way and Bernie is now the most popular politician in America sooooo. Using corporate democrat politician positions as an argument? Lol. They also laugh at medicare for all. And? She flat out said she believes they can both coexist in an interview just a week ago. Clinton didn't win because everyone who didn't vote for her hated her with a passion.
Universally agreed by who? Even if Clinton didn't have the DNC in her pocket, that doesn't mean she wouldn't have won the primaries. She's much more of a name than Sanders. Also we have no idea how he would've done against a loose canon like Trump.
Corporate Democrat? Most left leaning people would agree more with these people's positions. Most people prefer a market economy and yet you just pretend they don't exist or are irrelevant.
Yeah keep thinking she believes that. You're strangely naive.
Clinton wasn’t on the populist left. That’s why she didn’t win. When it comes down to it, Trump won because he was against the trade deals such as TPP. He won those Midwest states which have been impacted the most by trade deals. Clinton was known to be for those trade deals. That was the main reason why Trump won. Pretty much anyone. Especially when you look at the polling data and why Trump actually won like I stated above. I’m not saying she wouldn’t have, but it would have even been that much closer. You’re proving my point. For someone like Bernie, who had next to no name recognition, to come from way behind and come close to beating a political machine like Clinton is impressive in itself. Again, Sanders was an outsider like Trump, which is another big reason why people voted for Trump. To spit on the establishment. He’s also against those trade deals too as well as wanting to get out of wars (which Trump ran on when he was campaigning). He also doesn’t take any personal punches. He’s all policy substance. When people take personal punches at Trump, Trump will eat them up. Bernie would be the perfect debator against Trump. I already showed you and ACTUALLY gave you links of what most people agree with earlier in this thread. It’s populist left positions. Yet you just pretend they don’t exist or are irrelevant. Sure. I’m the one that’s naive.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 19, 2019 12:24:45 GMT
Clinton didn't win because everyone who didn't vote for her hated her with a passion.
Universally agreed by who? Even if Clinton didn't have the DNC in her pocket, that doesn't mean she wouldn't have won the primaries. She's much more of a name than Sanders. Also we have no idea how he would've done against a loose canon like Trump.
Corporate Democrat? Most left leaning people would agree more with these people's positions. Most people prefer a market economy and yet you just pretend they don't exist or are irrelevant.
Yeah keep thinking she believes that. You're strangely naive.
Clinton wasn’t on the populist left. That’s why she didn’t win. When it comes down to it, Trump won because he was against the trade deals such as TPP. He won those Midwest states which have been impacted the most by trade deals. Clinton was known to be for those trade deals. That was the main reason why Trump won. Pretty much anyone. Especially when you look at the polling data and why Trump actually won like I stated above. I’m not saying she wouldn’t have, but it would have even been that much closer. You’re proving my point. For someone like Bernie, who had next to no name recognition, to come from way behind and come close to beating a political machine like Clinton is impressive in itself. Again, Sanders was an outsider like Trump, which is another big reason why people voted for Trump. To spit on the establishment. He’s also against those trade deals too as well as wanting to get out of wars (which Trump ran on when he was campaigning). He also doesn’t take any personal punches. He’s all policy substance. When people take personal punches at Trump, Trump will eat them up. Bernie would be the perfect debator against Trump. I already showed you and ACTUALLY gave you links of what most people agree with earlier in this thread. It’s populist left positions. Yet you just pretend they don’t exist or are irrelevant. Sure. I’m the one that’s naive. Neither was Obama and he won twice. Trump won because Clinton was a shit candidate and the polls show that and people had become sick of the Democratic Party. You're just refuting your own point. You're saying Trump won because of opposition to bad trade deals and that got people going but you're anyone coulda beaten him. Make up your mind. Sanders did well amongst the youth vote which is obviously more social media savy than the older generation. It makes it seem like he was very popular when he wasn't since older Democrats aren't that far left. Also Trump would've pummeled Sanders in a debate. Trump is completely dirty and people don't care about what arguments you make in a debate. Everyone has made up their mind already before a debate starts.
Yeah and I told you they won't accept new taxes for these programs. People are stupid so yeah I think those polls are irrelevant.
Yeah you are naive.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 19, 2019 13:21:54 GMT
There is a great book waiting to happen on the nature of political polling and where that is now, but also the broader "research" industry behind polling and how over the years polling has become something to be swerved by the respondents (a fairly new and complex phenomenon) - it's an entirely different industry even than in the past - and the bigger the question, the shakier the results potentially. Even more crucially is how polling tries to factor that change in respondents into what they ask - question wording, sample size bias, weighting of data - or worse actually guide results (even in things unrelated to political polling - focus groups for consumer goods). Sounds all very dry and boring but it's actually quite provocative and illuminating to me anyway
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Feb 19, 2019 14:29:48 GMT
Clinton wasn’t on the populist left. That’s why she didn’t win. When it comes down to it, Trump won because he was against the trade deals such as TPP. He won those Midwest states which have been impacted the most by trade deals. Clinton was known to be for those trade deals. That was the main reason why Trump won. Pretty much anyone. Especially when you look at the polling data and why Trump actually won like I stated above. I’m not saying she wouldn’t have, but it would have even been that much closer. You’re proving my point. For someone like Bernie, who had next to no name recognition, to come from way behind and come close to beating a political machine like Clinton is impressive in itself. Again, Sanders was an outsider like Trump, which is another big reason why people voted for Trump. To spit on the establishment. He’s also against those trade deals too as well as wanting to get out of wars (which Trump ran on when he was campaigning). He also doesn’t take any personal punches. He’s all policy substance. When people take personal punches at Trump, Trump will eat them up. Bernie would be the perfect debator against Trump. I already showed you and ACTUALLY gave you links of what most people agree with earlier in this thread. It’s populist left positions. Yet you just pretend they don’t exist or are irrelevant. Sure. I’m the one that’s naive. Neither was Obama and he won twice. Trump won because Clinton was a shit candidate and the polls show that and people had become sick of the Democratic Party. You're just refuting your own point. You're saying Trump won because of opposition to bad trade deals and that got people going but you're anyone coulda beaten him. Make up your mind. Sanders did well amongst the youth vote which is obviously more social media savy than the older generation. It makes it seem like he was very popular when he wasn't since older Democrats aren't that far left. Also Trump would've pummeled Sanders in a debate. Trump is completely dirty and people don't care about what arguments you make in a debate. Everyone has made up their mind already before a debate starts.
Yeah and I told you they won't accept new taxes for these programs. People are stupid so yeah I think those polls are irrelevant.
Yeah you are naive.
I’m not going to argue that Clinton wasn’t a shit candidate. Again, that was a reason why people didn’t vote for her. They seen through her and were tired of the same old establishment policies that didn’t help them. Which is what you get with corporate democrats that are paid by big donors (surprise surprise). I’m not saying anyone could’ve beaten him? I’ve stated in this thread and in other threads that if you run a corporate democrat, he’ll win against them. Which is why you can’t run to the ‘center’, which is really republican lite. I’ve been consistent with this. You said who knows how Bernie would’ve done against a loose cannon like Trump. I said that he would’ve done perfectly fine because Bernie keeps it substantive. He doesn’t get personal. Bernie is running on everything that is popular and positions that are well liked, which is why he’s the most popular politician in America now. Those policies are all he ever talks about. Which is why he gained more and more support the more people heard about him. So you have no argument and therefore try and argue it’s the other way around without providing any evidence about your point? Okay. I’m the naive one.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 19, 2019 19:03:05 GMT
Neither was Obama and he won twice. Trump won because Clinton was a shit candidate and the polls show that and people had become sick of the Democratic Party. You're just refuting your own point. You're saying Trump won because of opposition to bad trade deals and that got people going but you're anyone coulda beaten him. Make up your mind. Sanders did well amongst the youth vote which is obviously more social media savy than the older generation. It makes it seem like he was very popular when he wasn't since older Democrats aren't that far left. Also Trump would've pummeled Sanders in a debate. Trump is completely dirty and people don't care about what arguments you make in a debate. Everyone has made up their mind already before a debate starts.
Yeah and I told you they won't accept new taxes for these programs. People are stupid so yeah I think those polls are irrelevant.
Yeah you are naive.
I’m not going to argue that Clinton wasn’t a shit candidate. Again, that was a reason why people didn’t vote for her. They seen through her and were tired of the same old establishment policies that didn’t help them. Which is what you get with corporate democrats that are paid by big donors (surprise surprise). I’m not saying anyone could’ve beaten him? I’ve stated in this thread and in other threads that if you run a corporate democrat, he’ll win against them. Which is why you can’t run to the ‘center’, which is really republican lite. I’ve been consistent with this. You said who knows how Bernie would’ve done against a loose cannon like Trump. I said that he would’ve done perfectly fine because Bernie keeps it substantive. He doesn’t get personal. Bernie is running on everything that is popular and positions that are well liked, which is why he’s the most popular politician in America now. Those policies are all he ever talks about. Which is why he gained more and more support the more people heard about him. So you have no argument and therefore try and argue it’s the other way around without providing any evidence about your point? Okay. I’m the naive one. If Obama ran again he would've won and he's very similar to Clinton. Running to the left is not popular enough to win. Corbyn couldn't beat the worst British prime minister in decades and now MP's are abandoning Labour because of Corbyn and his bumbling ways. You really think the gremlin version of Corbyn would be any different.
You think raising taxes, identity politics and gun control is popular with Americans. Yeah you are naive.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Feb 19, 2019 19:35:33 GMT
I’m not going to argue that Clinton wasn’t a shit candidate. Again, that was a reason why people didn’t vote for her. They seen through her and were tired of the same old establishment policies that didn’t help them. Which is what you get with corporate democrats that are paid by big donors (surprise surprise). I’m not saying anyone could’ve beaten him? I’ve stated in this thread and in other threads that if you run a corporate democrat, he’ll win against them. Which is why you can’t run to the ‘center’, which is really republican lite. I’ve been consistent with this. You said who knows how Bernie would’ve done against a loose cannon like Trump. I said that he would’ve done perfectly fine because Bernie keeps it substantive. He doesn’t get personal. Bernie is running on everything that is popular and positions that are well liked, which is why he’s the most popular politician in America now. Those policies are all he ever talks about. Which is why he gained more and more support the more people heard about him. So you have no argument and therefore try and argue it’s the other way around without providing any evidence about your point? Okay. I’m the naive one. If Obama ran again he would've won and he's very similar to Clinton. Running to the left is not popular enough to win. Corbyn couldn't beat the worst British prime minister in decades and now MP's are abandoning Labour because of Corbyn and his bumbling ways. You really think the gremlin version of Corbyn would be any different.
You think raising taxes, identity politics and gun control is popular with Americans. Yeah you are naive. ‘Running to the left is not popular enough to win’ yet I just showed you the policies on the left are popular. Lol. So popular that some of the corporate democrats are starting to take notice and run on some of the same policies Bernie put forth. If Bernie had the name recognition he does now and the DNC didn’t rig the primary, he would’ve beat Clinton. He was at a huge disadvantage at the start and came THAT close to winning it even after all of the obstacles. Which disproves your argument. You can’t come up with an argument other than saying that my sources are irrelevant and people are stupid. That’s not an argument dude. By the way, people that are on the populist left side are at a huge disadvantage compared to corporate demcorats because of the big donor contributions that corporate democrats receive. Money plays a huge role in the outcome of elections. Raising taxes on corporations and the top 1% is popular. When did I talk about identity politics? I never brought up identity politics and actually hate the idea of identity politics. So why bother to bring that up? Your automated response seems to be malfunctioning buddy. Also, certain measures of gun control is popular. Such as universal background checks and a ban on bump stocks. Which is all I’m arguing for.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 19, 2019 22:19:08 GMT
If Obama ran again he would've won and he's very similar to Clinton. Running to the left is not popular enough to win. Corbyn couldn't beat the worst British prime minister in decades and now MP's are abandoning Labour because of Corbyn and his bumbling ways. You really think the gremlin version of Corbyn would be any different.
You think raising taxes, identity politics and gun control is popular with Americans. Yeah you are naive. ‘Running to the left is not popular enough to win’ yet I just showed you the policies on the left are popular. Lol. So popular that some of the corporate democrats are starting to take notice and run on some of the same policies Bernie put forth. If Bernie had the name recognition he does now and the DNC didn’t rig the primary, he would’ve beat Clinton. He was at a huge disadvantage at the start and came THAT close to winning it even after all of the obstacles. Which disproves your argument. You can’t come up with an argument other than saying that my sources are irrelevant and people are stupid. That’s not an argument dude. By the way, people that are on the populist left side are at a huge disadvantage compared to corporate demcorats because of the big donor contributions that corporate democrats receive. Money plays a huge role in the outcome of elections. Raising taxes on corporations and the top 1% is popular. When did I talk about identity politics? I never brought up identity politics and actually hate the idea of identity politics. So why bother to bring that up? Your automated response seems to be malfunctioning buddy. Also, certain measures of gun control is popular. Such as universal background checks and a ban on bump stocks. Which is all I’m arguing for. Christ you're stupid and stubborn. They're not popular policies if it means raising taxes and putting it on corporations and the 1% is nowhere close to being enough. Even your old goblin buddy admits that. Saying your sources are irrelevant is an argument. It means negating it. Also the idea the populist left candidates are at a disadvantage based on money is stupid. Trump ran on the populist right and the RNC was completely against him backing their candidates completely and he made an absolute joke of them with a fraction of their money and Clinton's money. You just don't like the fact that far left policies aren't popular enough to win in America.
I didn't say you talked about identity politics. I was talking about Sanders and the entire Democratic party. What gun control measures that aren't in law are popular with Americans? When you get into the details of universal background checks then Americans get put off by it. Sanders and his ilk go further than you do even.
I'm enormously suspicious of populist candidates on either side.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Feb 20, 2019 0:48:39 GMT
‘Running to the left is not popular enough to win’ yet I just showed you the policies on the left are popular. Lol. So popular that some of the corporate democrats are starting to take notice and run on some of the same policies Bernie put forth. If Bernie had the name recognition he does now and the DNC didn’t rig the primary, he would’ve beat Clinton. He was at a huge disadvantage at the start and came THAT close to winning it even after all of the obstacles. Which disproves your argument. You can’t come up with an argument other than saying that my sources are irrelevant and people are stupid. That’s not an argument dude. By the way, people that are on the populist left side are at a huge disadvantage compared to corporate demcorats because of the big donor contributions that corporate democrats receive. Money plays a huge role in the outcome of elections. Raising taxes on corporations and the top 1% is popular. When did I talk about identity politics? I never brought up identity politics and actually hate the idea of identity politics. So why bother to bring that up? Your automated response seems to be malfunctioning buddy. Also, certain measures of gun control is popular. Such as universal background checks and a ban on bump stocks. Which is all I’m arguing for. Christ you're stupid and stubborn. They're not popular policies if it means raising taxes and putting it on corporations and the 1% is nowhere close to being enough. Even your old goblin buddy admits that. Saying your sources are irrelevant is an argument. It means negating it. Also the idea the populist left candidates are at a disadvantage based on money is stupid. Trump ran on the populist right and the RNC was completely against him backing their candidates completely and he made an absolute joke of them with a fraction of their money and Clinton's money. You just don't like the fact that far left policies aren't popular enough to win in America.
I didn't say you talked about identity politics. I was talking about Sanders and the entire Democratic party. What gun control measures that aren't in law are popular with Americans? When you get into the details of universal background checks then Americans get put off by it. Sanders and his ilk go further than you do even.
I'm enormously suspicious of populist candidates on either side.
They’re popular policies because they’re liked by majority of the country. Which can be paid by raising taxes in certain areas and reallocating money. Some examples are raising the social security payroll, using estate taxes, increasing top marginal tax rates, end fossil fuel subsidies, end Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a Wall Street speculation tax to name some. For arguments sake, let’s say that people in the middle class/lower classes seen their taxes raised by three grand for medicare for all, they’d see a five thousand premium to insurance companies disappear. I’ll argue that majority of people would rather pay taxes for the well-being of others rather than on a bloated military fighting unnecessary wars, corrupt corporations, and an evil government. Do you not realize how dumb it sounds for you to say that calling a source ‘irrelevant’ without saying anything else is a good enough argument? How are they not at a disadvantage? They’re fighting against special interests that don’t want to see their policies go through. Special interest groups that spend millions on elections to get their way. If this didn’t matter, why would these groups continuously waste money on these politicians? Money in politics matters. Trump had the luxury of having the corporate media always talking about him and focusing on things people didn’t care about. Such as his ‘issue with swearing’ and him sleeping with a pornstar. Giving him a vast amount of attention that was rather positive since people could give two shits. Yet those policies are starting to become mainstream? Medicare for all, free college tuition, raising the minimum wage, breaking up the biggest banks, and a new deal for example were rarely talked about in America, and now they’re being talked about. With some establishment democrats even running on a couple of the issues. It sounds like you don’t like the fact that people in America have realized how fucked over they’ve been and are starting to say fuck the establishment and want real change. These policies aren’t far left. They’re seen in many industrialized countries, and when a right wing party is running those countries, they still don’t get rid of the policies because of how massively popular they are. Imagine Harper trying to get rid of single payer healthcare. There’d be an outcry. Bernie doesn’t run on identity policies lmao. I never see him talk about how discriminated he’s been because of his Jewish background. Hell, he almost never brings his Jewish background up. People in the Democratic Party that make identity politics a big deal hate Bernie because he’s an old white man.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Feb 20, 2019 1:51:33 GMT
Need a center candidate in this party? What? Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Harris, and Biden if he runs are all centrist candidates. Now some of these candidates are more to the left than others to a certain degree, but they’re all corporate democrats. Guess what happened last time a corporate democrat ran against one of the most unfavourable candidates of all time? They lost. Running to the center has failed. It’s not the 90’s anymore. You've just seen the complete collapse of a very left wing country in South America. The Labour party in Britain is falling literally apart. People make Trump out to be some far right politician when he's very centrist on a lot of things. The extremes don't win anymore and you're suggesting some idiot socialists. Tulsi Gabbard is a good choice for the Democrats. She's not very left wing and she's a soldier who's willing to criticise her own party. If Tulsi was more pro-life she could defeat Trump easily, but she isn't. But still she could change that, saying that she is against late terms abortion, and every state could make their own abortions laws.- People vote 4 Trump, because he could said NO to lobbys. I think Tulsi could declare Independence from Planned Parenthood in order to take the White House control.-
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 20, 2019 3:27:57 GMT
Christ you're stupid and stubborn. They're not popular policies if it means raising taxes and putting it on corporations and the 1% is nowhere close to being enough. Even your old goblin buddy admits that. Saying your sources are irrelevant is an argument. It means negating it. Also the idea the populist left candidates are at a disadvantage based on money is stupid. Trump ran on the populist right and the RNC was completely against him backing their candidates completely and he made an absolute joke of them with a fraction of their money and Clinton's money. You just don't like the fact that far left policies aren't popular enough to win in America.
I didn't say you talked about identity politics. I was talking about Sanders and the entire Democratic party. What gun control measures that aren't in law are popular with Americans? When you get into the details of universal background checks then Americans get put off by it. Sanders and his ilk go further than you do even.
I'm enormously suspicious of populist candidates on either side.
They’re popular policies because they’re liked by majority of the country. Which can be paid by raising taxes in certain areas and reallocating money. Some examples are raising the social security payroll, using estate taxes, increasing top marginal tax rates, end fossil fuel subsidies, end Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a Wall Street speculation tax to name some. For arguments sake, let’s say that people in the middle class/lower classes seen their taxes raised by three grand for medicare for all, they’d see a five thousand premium to insurance companies disappear. I’ll argue that majority of people would rather pay taxes for the well-being of others rather than on a bloated military fighting unnecessary wars, corrupt corporations, and an evil government. Do you not realize how dumb it sounds for you to say that calling a source ‘irrelevant’ without saying anything else is a good enough argument? How are they not at a disadvantage? They’re fighting against special interests that don’t want to see their policies go through. Special interest groups that spend millions on elections to get their way. If this didn’t matter, why would these groups continuously waste money on these politicians? Money in politics matters. Trump had the luxury of having the corporate media always talking about him and focusing on things people didn’t care about. Such as his ‘issue with swearing’ and him sleeping with a pornstar. Giving him a vast amount of attention that was rather positive since people could give two shits. Yet those policies are starting to become mainstream? Medicare for all, free college tuition, raising the minimum wage, breaking up the biggest banks, and a new deal for example were rarely talked about in America, and now they’re being talked about. With some establishment democrats even running on a couple of the issues. It sounds like you don’t like the fact that people in America have realized how fucked over they’ve been and are starting to say fuck the establishment and want real change. These policies aren’t far left. They’re seen in many industrialized countries, and when a right wing party is running those countries, they still don’t get rid of the policies because of how massively popular they are. Imagine Harper trying to get rid of single payer healthcare. There’d be an outcry. Bernie doesn’t run on identity policies lmao. I never see him talk about how discriminated he’s been because of his Jewish background. Hell, he almost never brings his Jewish background up. People in the Democratic Party that make identity politics a big deal hate Bernie because he’s an old white man. Alright I'm bored by this and just so you know like all socialists you're incapable of new ideas. It's always rethreading failed ideas
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Feb 20, 2019 7:43:20 GMT
They’re popular policies because they’re liked by majority of the country. Which can be paid by raising taxes in certain areas and reallocating money. Some examples are raising the social security payroll, using estate taxes, increasing top marginal tax rates, end fossil fuel subsidies, end Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a Wall Street speculation tax to name some. For arguments sake, let’s say that people in the middle class/lower classes seen their taxes raised by three grand for medicare for all, they’d see a five thousand premium to insurance companies disappear. I’ll argue that majority of people would rather pay taxes for the well-being of others rather than on a bloated military fighting unnecessary wars, corrupt corporations, and an evil government. Do you not realize how dumb it sounds for you to say that calling a source ‘irrelevant’ without saying anything else is a good enough argument? How are they not at a disadvantage? They’re fighting against special interests that don’t want to see their policies go through. Special interest groups that spend millions on elections to get their way. If this didn’t matter, why would these groups continuously waste money on these politicians? Money in politics matters. Trump had the luxury of having the corporate media always talking about him and focusing on things people didn’t care about. Such as his ‘issue with swearing’ and him sleeping with a pornstar. Giving him a vast amount of attention that was rather positive since people could give two shits. Yet those policies are starting to become mainstream? Medicare for all, free college tuition, raising the minimum wage, breaking up the biggest banks, and a new deal for example were rarely talked about in America, and now they’re being talked about. With some establishment democrats even running on a couple of the issues. It sounds like you don’t like the fact that people in America have realized how fucked over they’ve been and are starting to say fuck the establishment and want real change. These policies aren’t far left. They’re seen in many industrialized countries, and when a right wing party is running those countries, they still don’t get rid of the policies because of how massively popular they are. Imagine Harper trying to get rid of single payer healthcare. There’d be an outcry. Bernie doesn’t run on identity policies lmao. I never see him talk about how discriminated he’s been because of his Jewish background. Hell, he almost never brings his Jewish background up. People in the Democratic Party that make identity politics a big deal hate Bernie because he’s an old white man. Alright I'm bored by this and just so you know like all socialists you're incapable of new ideas. It's always rethreading failed ideas Well I use to be conservative so apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 14, 2021 19:43:00 GMT
Um........
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Sept 14, 2021 22:02:25 GMT
Um........ AOC's total lack of self awareness and blatant hypocrisy is amazing to me. She is literally wearing a dress that says "Tax the Rich" on it during her appearance at the Met Gala ($30,000 dollar entry fee btw) while rubbing elbows & yucking it up with a bunch of Hollywood elites . its just too good to be true lol. the jokes write themselves One person on Twitter said “She understands irony almost as well as she does economics,”
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 14, 2021 22:56:33 GMT
Non-story
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 14, 2021 23:42:33 GMT
Bezos could pay everyone's met gala entry fee 100 times over without batting an eye. But sure Hollywood actors are the real problem
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 15, 2021 0:05:52 GMT
AOC isn't even that wealthy as far as members of Congress goes and even if she was some uber-millionaire, doesn't a rich person saying to tax the rich give the argument more credibility? You can have money or be around people with money and think that money would be better served towards public goods. It's a pretty dumb argument to say it's hypocritical to have money and want higher taxes on the rich, but it's also mostly coming from the people who would think anybody who's poor or in the shrinking middle class making that same statement are just bitter losers lacking the work ethic to be millionaires. Ever-increasing wealth inequality exists and all people, rich and poor, should be encouraged to talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 15, 2021 0:11:52 GMT
Um........ AOC's total lack of self awareness and blatant hypocrisy is amazing to me. She is literally wearing a dress that says "Tax the Rich" on it during her appearance at the Met Gala ($30,000 dollar entry fee btw) while rubbing elbows & yucking it up with a bunch of Hollywood elites . its just too good to be true lol. the jokes write themselves One person on Twitter said “She understands irony almost as well as she does economics,” Solely judging by your posts which feel like they came out an NPC word generator, I'm sure AOC knows much more about economics than you.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 15, 2021 0:13:48 GMT
AOC isn't even that wealthy as far as members of Congress goes and even if she was some uber-millionaire, doesn't a rich person saying to tax the rich give the argument more credibility? You can have money or be around people with money and think that money would be better served towards public goods. It's a pretty dumb argument to say it's hypocritical to have money and want higher taxes on the rich, but it's also mostly coming from the people who would think anybody who's poor or in the shrinking middle class making that same statement are just bitter losers lacking the work ethic to be millionaires. Ever-increasing wealth inequality exists and all people, rich and poor, should be encouraged to talk about it. “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.” - Russell Brand
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 15, 2021 0:40:32 GMT
Um........ AOC's total lack of self awareness and blatant hypocrisy is amazing to me. She is literally wearing a dress that says "Tax the Rich" on it during her appearance at the Met Gala ($30,000 dollar entry fee btw) while rubbing elbows & yucking it up with a bunch of Hollywood elites . its just too good to be true lol. the jokes write themselves One person on Twitter said “She understands irony almost as well as she does economics,” That says, "tax the rich"? Oops, I thought it said, "tacky bitch"
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 15, 2021 0:47:52 GMT
She looks like a rich Macy Grey What happened to her after this?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 15, 2021 0:56:42 GMT
Um........ I was sure someone was going to say something about Lance Bass running up the steps and the possible cost of his shoes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2021 1:32:55 GMT
I'm annoyed by the dress only because I know it's what conservative media will be talking about for the next 5 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 15, 2021 1:40:37 GMT
Um........ I was sure someone was going to say something about Lance Bass running up the steps and the possible cost of his shoes If that's Lance Bass then he needs stop doing to his face whatever he's doing. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Sept 15, 2021 3:57:28 GMT
AOC's total lack of self awareness and blatant hypocrisy is amazing to me. She is literally wearing a dress that says "Tax the Rich" on it during her appearance at the Met Gala ($30,000 dollar entry fee btw) while rubbing elbows & yucking it up with a bunch of Hollywood elites . its just too good to be true lol. the jokes write themselves One person on Twitter said “She understands irony almost as well as she does economics,” Solely judging by your posts which feel like they came out an NPC word generator, I'm sure AOC knows much more about economics than you. Nah I highly doubt that. . First off, AOC is an openly proud Socialist . She doesn't even hide it(that alone tells me all I need to know about her knowledge of economics and its not good ) She also proposed the Green New Deal (a flat out insanely unrealistic & not even feasible plan that AOC proposed. She said the Green New Deal would cost at least $10 TRILLION dollars. I am a firm believer in global warming & climate change and love the environment but I can also think the Green New Deal is a dumb unrealistic idea. "I think we really need to get to $10 trillion to have a shot," the freshman lawmaker told The Hill on Wednesday, adding, "I know it's a ton. I don't think anyone wants to spend that amount of money, it's not a fun number to say, I'm not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... it's just the fact of the scenario."
www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-green-new-deal-cost-10-trillion-2019-6She sure does seem to be perfectly fine spending other peoples' money though. I'll give her that smh. I'm a Moderate btw and I just can't support extremists on either sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Sept 15, 2021 4:25:31 GMT
There’s a deeper underlying issue in the pic. The dress is not the issue and idk why it’s causing controversy, this clout chasing nonsense from her is par for the course and shouldn’t surprise anyone. Why don’t we talk about how all the poors are being forced to mask up while the rich elites get to show off those smiles. Look at every single clip from this, every single pic and see who’s wearing a mask and who’s not. And not just from this event but from other elitist events too like that dinner/reception/whatever the fuck it was last month that Nancy Pelosi hosted. All the politicians and celebrities unmasked, servants and caterers not allowed to show their faces. Our ruling elite are absolutely shameless
|
|