Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Answers The Question Like A Boss

Submitted by: holygod 4 months ago in News & Politics


This girl is speaking my language.

From CNN: Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned why Republicans are happy to pay for tax cuts and "unlimited war" but the GOP, and some Democrats, don't see "Medicare-for-all" or other progressive ideas as financially feasible.

"People talk about the sticker shock of Medicare-for-all, but not of our existing system," Ocasio-Cortez said during an interview on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time."

"This is not a pipe dream. Every other nation does this -- why can't America?" she added.
Later on the show, Ocasio-Cortez said there's a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from lawmakers who criticize her platform while ignoring a "$2 trillion check for a GOP tax cut."

"When it comes to tax cuts for bills and unlimited war," she said, "we seem to invent that money very easily."
There are 232 comments:
Male 326
If anyone would be so inclined to actually learn what socialism is and provide a more coherent argument against it beyond, "bUt veNeZueLa," please indulge yourself.

Crash Course Socialism
4
Reply
Male 1,861
Unemployment under 4%... GDP rising at 4.1%... oh yes! Capitalism has utterly failed in the USA!

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/ocasiocortez_vs_the_trump_economy.html

"Among the black, Hispanic, female, and Asian populations, unemployment is at or nearing all-time low numbers."

Her reply to the information of low unemployment? (from last month) That people were forced to have 2 jobs and that obscured the true numbers... Really!

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33144/watch-ocasio-cortez-says-low-unemployment-part-ryan-saavedra
0
Reply
Male 7,259
I like her, smart lady.
-1
Reply
Male 1,861
She's a flaming socialist idiot, her dumb answers to simple questions are already legendary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUz0a7G8UbU

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
And answering a "softball" question like that (in this post, and the link too) is far and away NOT the same as "like a boss" in ANY way shape or form: it's pre-scripted most likely and thus easy as possible to answer.

Please, she isn't even elected to any level of Gov't (that I'm aware of, she's just the nominee yes?) and she's a socialist fruit-bat. Enough of the fake hype.
-6
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then."
Available evidence suggests that a blind squirrel would not reach adulthood, and therefore would never find a nut. Even though nuts seem to be available in far greater numbers lately.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 You assume that said squirrel was born blind, that is an error. It could have gone blind because it played with its nuts too often (my mother told me not to do that eh?) as an adult: thus it could still be trying to find nuts as a blind adult. ;-)
2
Reply
Male 9,481
semichisam01 ~Squrlz' whiskers twitch with interest~
0
Reply
Male 777
-3
Reply
Male 1,864
johncourage Reminds me of the post about the family dog getting repossessed. 
1
Reply
Male 777
marsii Reminds me of this restaurant that says it will cook whatever you catch. I wonder if there is a pet store near it.
-2
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Your sane and rational argument, backed up by reputable data, has convinced me.
6
Reply
Male 777
LordJim boring
-9
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Give me something to work with and I'll try to be less so.
4
Reply
Male 777
-4
Reply
Male 9,311
Read an artice - I think in the Guardian - a couple of years ago about US citizens "trapped" in Canada. They went over for work with their families, various health issues crop up, as they do, which are covered in Canada but if they go back to the US they'll be screwed.
2
Reply
Male 777
LordJim Read an article about people in Canada that couldn't get treatment for their illnesses so they decided to go on vacation for their remaining days.
-1
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Sooner or later we all get that ( unless we get hit by a bus ). It's called life. Even the best care does not confer immortality. One day the doctor will say "Time's about up." Vacation while you can.
2
Reply
Male 777
LordJim No, I can get treatment at the doctor's office.
-1
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage If you have a policy that ensures you live forever I congratulate you.
3
Reply
Male 777
LordJim thank you
0
Reply
Male 779
Either she's stupid for thinking Socialism will work here, or she's smart and thinks the Socialists can take over and she can be one of those in charge who get everything, at least until it all comes crashing down like it did in Venezuela. You might be able to pay for all she wants for a couple of years but what happens in 10 when production has dropped off by 90%? 350 million starving, angry, armed citizens could cause a lot of problems.
-3
Reply
Male 1,861
Shelworth They (the Democrats) will disarm Americans first of course. That'll kill off 20-30 million people and make their job of bringing in a Marxist Paradise a lot easier... for the 10 years it will last before utter collapse of course.
-4
Reply
Male 5,685
gohikineko "They (the Democrats) will disarm Americans first of course."

OH come one with that old bull poo.  After 8 years of Obama...how many guns were taken away?
2
Reply
Male 21,778
gohikineko No they won’t. Who are all these democrats that want to ban guns? No rational person wants to ban guns - not from the right, not from the left. 

Waiting periods? Yes. Better background checks? Yes. Training and licenses? Maybe, you need them for cars. 

No one wants take all the guns away from “law-abiding” Americans. And until you can provide a legit link with a “top-brass Dem” (your words) asking for that very law, this argument holds no water.
4
Reply
Male 1,861
fancylad Feinstein has for decades, there's plenty of proof here in this thread. And she is far from alone, Hillary was into it too, as are a bunch of top Democrats like Pelosi, Boxer (now retired) and others...

Why didn't Obama push gun control? I have NO idea! A true mystery to me, actually, lolz!

Passing illegal laws to remove the rights of law-abiding citizens is the hallmark of literally every Democrat who gets elected to a high enough State/City office. Chicago, New York (both State and City) and California have had a LONG line of laws overturned as being utterly unconstitutional by the courts... just for example.

Forcing people to pay more (essentially a tax) to exercise their right isn't 'common sense' it's unconstitutional and if the Dems don't like that? They just ignore it and try, try again!

On top of that? These 'common sense laws' would do absolutely nothing at all to prevent or restrict mass-killing or mass-shootings in almost every single case. All they'd do is prevent/restrict lawful owners from doing lawful things.

For example: Waiting period? Literally every single mass-killer had his guns for over 1 year before doing it. 4-6 months was a minimum iirc, for the past 20 of them... (or they stole guns which had been owned for that long, but that's a separate list). Making lawful citizens wait even 3 months would do what exactly? It would prevent a woman with a violent Ex- from protecting herself, that's what.
0
Reply
Male 21,778
gohikineko Wow, those are some whoppers there. Without legitimate stats, this is just someone creatively writing a narrative to fit their belief system.
1
Reply
Male 1,861
fancylad So you don't think that mass killers/shooters plan their attacks weeks or months in advance? That a 'waiting period' would somehow deter them and force them to call it off?

Ok then! Oh wait...
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings
And even Mother Jones says it's true:
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/06/active-shooters-fbi-research-warning-signs/
(paragraph 7) "...while two-thirds spent at least a month planning, and some spent far longer." Cites an FBI study btw...

Enough 'legitimate stats' or you want a PHD Thesis paper on the topic? :-/ I thought it was a well-known enough fact that I didn't have to do a simple search for it...
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko you just can't stop lying. You proved she said she would have like to outlaw all assault rifles and you proved she had a problem with high capacity. There isn't a single thing that remotely proves she wants to ban all guns.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod So... the Dem platform on gun control ENDS with the "scary military-style assault rifles" and does NOTHING AT ALL to address actual gun crime?
Well! That settles it! Thanks for your support! :->

Meanwhile, she still clearly said she would have confiscated them (the ones covered by the FAW, and presumably the ones covered by the following bill too) if she could have, that's the truth.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko That IS the truth. So stick to the truth. 

"she's openly said (Hillary too) that they'd (the DNC) like to take away ALL the guns"

Is a lie. Plain and simple.

I really enjoy debating you, but not when you say things that are objectively false. It de-rails the conversation. 
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Yes, she'd like to confiscate those guns covered under FAW, and then those covered under her next law... and so on and so forth until totality had been achieved!

That's how it works. It isn't objectively false it's a fact you agree with: she'd confiscate if she could. Some or all guns is covered in a different comment. It isn't a lie if it's the truth, and also it's MY opinion, sorry dude.

The DNC Platform requires support of Gun Control, the top DNC Party members ALL endorse it. That just isn't disputable, it's cold-hard common knowledge. The fact is that all of their 'controls' require at least some confiscation "to get guns off the streets" either right away or eventually. Under whatever euphemism they use? That's the plan and they all agree with it.

I shake my head trying to figure out what part of that you fail to understand. Just 'hung up' on trivialities again I suppose...
0
Reply
Male 13,269
It's fine for you to say that is what you think she wants to do. Absolutely. You said she SAID she's wanted to take all guns. If you didn't hear her say that, see a video of it, or read a quote from a reputable source than what you said is fucking LIE. Plain and simple.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod She said, plain as day, if she could confiscate them all she would do so. So what if she was "only" referring to those covered by her FAW? She planned and actually submitted another law to increase the guns covered over time: that's the entire idea! First a small group, them a bigger group, then even more: slippery slope!

Thus it is only reasonable to believe that she'd confiscate those too! Far from a lie, backed by her own words.

If she'd do that* to guns which are RARELY used in any crimes? Then what would she do to guns most often used? Hint: make them illegal then confiscate. If she could... without the confiscation there is nothing, you refuse to address that. 
But that's fine, happy to let it drop at this point, you're just ignoring everything I say and repeating your accusations. A familiar pattern, actually.

*That = unconstitutionally denying lawful citizens of their rights, never forget what she's saying here, ok?
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko "so what?"

Well, quite simply all assault rifles =/= all guns.

It's the difference between your original statement being RIGHT and your original statement being WRONG.

Let's say I was giving an interview where I said I'd like to make all vehicles that get less than 12mpg illegal. Does that then mean I'd like to make all vehicles illegal?

See we can't even debate gun policy because we've spent the whole time debating reality. What you said is just simply not accurate and until you can admit that we can't move on to a more productive discussion.
1
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod First it's 12mpg, then  15, then 25... soon it will be ANY car that uses the DEMON GAS (or the Devil Diesel!) will be banned! That's the open statement of many 'ecological groups' is that they see an end to ALL oil consumption in cars. Again, this isn't even a secret, it's billed as a laudable (if distant) goal!

BTW, recent studies show that Obama's ethanol program was an abject disaster and caused more ecological harm than good... yet again! Just like cash for clunkers! And literally every other 'environmental policy' he had.

So when Democrats across America get into power and proceed to violate the Constitution on the 2nd, over and over again for decades now? I see it as a distinct pattern with one goal in mind. These are not 'rebels or renegades' they are praised not punished by the DNC Brass! Their end goal, no matter how far in the future, is to disarm the "common citizens" for "their own good". The end justifies the means.

No, not "all" guns: they (The Elite! The Rich!) will still have guns, the army, police and criminals too... but not you.

Talking on any subject requires some form of brevity & generalization or it would take pages (with footnotes!!!) to say a simple thing. Demanding "language laws" for a discussion is a hallmark of the left. Demanding "micro-precision" in my words while they freely throw around catch-phrases and talking points is... disingenuous at best.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko please stop.

Gun control =/= take away all guns.

I absolutely support better background checks and screenings, waiting periods, connected systems, outlawing personal and online sales, outlawing certain types of guns and accessories, and mandatory safety classes. I IN NO WAY SUPPORT OUTLAWING OR CONFISCATING ALL GUNS.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Not "all" the guns, her security guards and the 1% wealthy Elite would still have theirs, LMAO!

Then you're wishing for a job to be "half-done" with no benefits to anyone at best, and a big boost to criminals at the worst. Laws & more laws already exist and many are not even enforced: so more useless, unenforced laws will harm the innocent and protect the guilty, just like they do in Canada. Throwing billions at it with no chance of even making a tiny positive difference, but a big chance of making matters worse, is beyond irresponsible: it's criminally negligent. (on the part of lawmakers, not you personally eh? I totally understand your position, I just reject it outright, ok?) 
Just my opinion. :-)

And BTW there's a clear and EASY method to overturn the 2nd: JUST DO IT and stop trying to ignore & invalidate the valid rights of other people, ok? Shred this right and the rest will follow, just as it has in every case in history... the 1st Amendment will be the second to fall...
0
Reply
Male 1,864
gohikineko Come on now, you can't really think that? Out of hundreds of millions of people there's maybe a few that think like that and it's not the leadership. Don't demonize those you disagree with, its not good for you or for conversation.
4
Reply
Male 1,861
marsii Of course lots of Dem 'rank and file' think confiscation is good, that's normal for a 'base' to have divergent opinions. I bet even a few Repubs think it also, that isn't an issue.

Feinstein clearly was one of the very top Democrats, and she was clearly ALL for restricting and then confiscation. First for 'scary guns' but that isn't the end goal for her is it? I'll deal with it at length in this thread...
0
Reply
Male 1,864
gohikineko I don't agree. I've almost never run into someone who wants to take rifles and shotguns away from people who aren't felons. Maybe if they have restraining order against them temporarily. And this is among liberals.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
marsii Then you've been lucky! Lolz! 
Of course there's Dem members who actively support the 2nd, that helps keep the leadership in check eh? I never think the majority of Dems out there want confiscation, but 'the elite' do: it's extremely rare for them (the leadership) to say anything but that. (remember, they disguise it with euphemisms like 'buy-back' or 'dangerous military-style' eh?)
0
Reply
Male 1,864
gohikineko I don't know about that. Seems far fetched. You might want to keep an open mind about what people say about their opponents  and I'll try to do the same.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko dude did you get even more paranoid over your break? I thought you had mellowed a bit. You legit think this or you just enjoy being provocative?
1
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Well, since the DNC top brass all say they want to disarm law-abiding Americans? I don't think that counts as 'paranoia' I think it counts as 'being well informed'.
Anyhow, the point is that socialism always fails, it runs out of 'other people's money' and then turns on itself. Sometimes they start by turning on themselves, either way brings the same end result.

And one of the top Dem Gun Grabber - Flag Bearers had a Chinese spy on her staff for the past 20 years... the FBI tried to warn her and stuff but she didn't seem to care much. Of course the MSM is all over this right, you knew all about it already :-)

It's hard to be paranoid when things turn out to really be worse than you imagined...
-1
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko "...one of the top Dem Gun Grabber - Flag Bearers had a Chinese spy on her staff for the past 20 years... the FBI tried to warn her and stuff but she didn't seem to care much."

Diane Feinstein's driver for 20 years was recruited during a trip to China. He claims that he didn't realise what was happening until he was committed, which is the customary recruitment method. The FBI informed her of this in 2013, and she immediately ordered him to resign. It was widely reported at the time. I don't know what you mean by "and stuff", but I find that clarity of expression and clarity of thought often go hand-in-hand.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 Not a 'driver' he was an assistant, jeez man. And a close friend according to all accounts.
You're saying he was not employed after the FBI warned her? That he himself didn't KNOW he was a spy? What nonsense...

I don't honestly care enough to go searching for answers, if I come across any I'll update via an edit...

Edit: Her camp was warned in 1996 I've read, that's what I referred to.
Here's insight into the whole affair:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/

He was much more than "just a nameless driver" he was an aid in every sense.
1
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko "Edit: Her camp was warned in 1996 I've read,"
The article you linked states quite clearly that Feinstein was notified by the FBI in 2013, and that the man was let go then. Different news sources differ on how he was let go, whether he resigned or was fired.
He was hired as a driver and worked as a driver for 20 years. He also acted as Feinstein's liaison to the California Chinese community, if that's what you meant by "an aid".
His story is that he occasionally communicated with a person he met at a bar on a trip to China. I have found no report confirming or denying that. 
The FBI official report states that there is no evidence that he passed on any critical intelligence.
All this was reported by the MSM long before the Federalist wrote their take on it.
1
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 So if he had no access to secret stuff, and no influence at all with her, why was he recruited?

They warned her in the 90's, she did nothing then, but they told her there was an outright spy in her camp in 2013 and she fired him. That's the difference, to me anyhow.

Again: if he was "just a driver" why was he the only one suspected and released? How did he get his hands on anything remotely sensitive?
0
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko "So if he had no access to secret stuff, and no influence at all with her, why was he recruited?"
I do not know who has claimed these things. I have not.

"Again: if he was "just a driver" why was he the only one suspected and released? How did he get his hands on anything remotely sensitive?"
You keep writing that he was "just a driver". No one else is claiming that. There has been no public release of any claim that he did or did not "...get his hands on anything remotely sensitive..." What has been officially stated is that there is no evidence that he passed anything sensitive on to the Chinese.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 "he's just a driver" was the initial response of Feinstein and the DNC, dutifully reported verbatim by the MSM. As more light came to the story he clearly was more than 'just a driver' and that is probably why he got recruited in the first place.
NOW they've changed their story to 'he didn't have classified materials' or other nonsense.

He was an actual spy, in her staff for many years, period. She was always a big supporter of China so IDK why they felt the need to spy on her, but that's espionage for ya!
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko Who said they want to disarm law-abiding citizens. Please provide links and sources and then we can continue. If you make a definitive statement back it up. 

I thought we couldn't trust the FBI?
-1
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Um, the Brady Bill? That was Feinstein's baby, and she's openly said (Hillary too) that they'd (the DNC) like to take away ALL the guns... except for the ones their security guards have of course. I've linked this so many times, it isn't like Feinstein even tries to keep it a secret or anything.

You can no longer trust the FBI, it is in the middle of trying to overthrow the legitimate US Government... the FBI warned 'one of their own' rather than, you know, get a wiretap and spy on her...
0
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko The Brady Bill (H.R. 1025) had 156 cosponsors, but Feinstein was not one of them. The Congressional Record is a useful source for information about the work of Congress.

The conspiracy theories that you are espousing in this thread are virtually all products of russian bots. Sources matter. 
0
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 I was mistaken, it was the FAW Ban and she was the sponsor of that. She then offered an even harsher set of laws when that one failed and lapsed... 
I got the two (Brady/FAW) mixed up :/ Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko stop spreading lies. Post proof.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Oh please, choose another hill, Feinstein was the sponsor of the Brady Bill and that's all the proof anyone needs.
Oh sorry, it was the dumber bill: the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Which did absolutely nothing at all. She heavily supported and (iirc) co-authored the Brady Bill, but Schumer introduced it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

EDIT: oops, she was sponsor of the FAW not Brady, my mistake! To be clear I mistook one for the other. She's still a certified gun grabber of course, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko Neither of those were to ban all guns. So again, stop spreading lies.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Again, you asked what their goal is, not what specific "first efforts towards that goal" are.
Their goal is: total confiscation. They don't even try to hide this any longer. Every 'sensible law' or emotional appeal is one step down the path.

They've been trying to restrict and confiscate for decades now, every trick and emotional appeal in the book. It has nothing at all to do with safety, crime or anything but rounding up guns from law-abiding citizens. They have NO plans to take guns from criminals, of course!

Of course there'd be 'exceptions' like for the staffs of armed security guards who protect them... but I doubt they'd be allowed to use their guns to defend their own homes (this has already been tried in various places: forcing cops to keep their guns at the station...). 
Elitism = they know better than the unwashed masses what rights you have.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

We are not arguing over what their goal may or may not be as that is completely subjective. You said:

"and she's openly said (Hillary too) that they'd (the DNC) like to take away ALL the guns"

Post proof or admit you are lying.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Sigh, you'll just reject my sources or nit-pick trivialities.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/07/9-dumbest-gun-control-quotes-politicians-and-celebrities#page-7

She's #1 and #6 too. 

I'll ask you a question: since not one of the proposed laws would do a damn thing without confiscation involved, why would any sane person NOT also support confiscation if they're actively pushing these laws for decades?? 

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php

She may be "only" talking about outright confiscation of those specified in the FAW ban, but the group of weapons included in "semi-automatic" are the vast majority of guns in the USA... it was her first step, prove otherwise. She wants to confiscate, period.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko are you fucking with me? She's not #1 and then #6 is about capacity and had nothing to did with taking away all guns. You're just absolutely lying.
-1
Reply
Male 2,168
gohikineko "are you fucking with me?"

Yes, he's just fucking with you. Perhaps his pain medication is failing. My wife assures me that when I was in a similar situation, I became the asshole of the universe. I recommend a break, for myself. You may have a different theory.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
semichisam01 I stopped taking pain meds in late June (like, June 30 lolz! IDK the exact date), they had side effects and I didn't really need them.
I'm quite used to abdominal pain, I've had IBS for decades, on and off. 

My pain is 'spotty' now and tolerable, things get better every day!

Saying that the platform of the Democrats includes "gun control" is not paranoid fantasy OK? And when one looks at what they actually propose? the ONLY way it could POSSIBLY work is with confiscation: a little or a lot and mostly a LOT of it. Of course they try to hide that, but it slips out of their mouths now and then...

You can sugar-coat the terms: "voluntary buy back" (or else you pay thousands in fees!) and other nonsense, it's all the same.
0
Reply
Male 9,481
semichisam01 Heated discussion and sparring works, as long as productive arguing is going on. As a favor to the mods, though, let's avoid introducing medication into the discussion; that can start to veer toward personal attacks. Thanks.
0
Reply
Female 6,689
1
Reply
Male 1,861
melcervini She got her ban, the Brady Bill. Gun crime and deaths went UP.
The bill expired, gun crime and deaths went DOWN.
But still she persists!! :-O
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko The brady bill expired? When?
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Confused it with the FAW Ban. The Brady Bill is utterly useless anyhow so who cares :-)
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko the FAWB started in 1994 and expired in 2004.

Deaths went up?

WRONG

Firearm homicides went from approximately 17,500/100,000 in 1993 down to less than 10,000/100,000 in 2000.

Then after it expired deaths went up?

WRONG AGAIN

From 2004 to 2011 gun homicide rate was virtually unchanged.

You could make a reasonable argument that gun violence was already going down by 1994 and continued on the same trajectory and that the ban had nothing to do with it. You could also point to the fact that after the ban was lifted the rate did not change as further evidence that it had no affect. Instead you decide to outright lie and say two things that are objectively and easily provably false.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Rate, sigh, the population rose so the raw # may have gone up, but the rate dropped a bit. The Brady Bill saw the rise and then fall, I don't know the effects of the FAW except that it was useless. Sorry I convoluted the two, it shows how much the Grabbers have been hard at work, yes?

So it stayed the same? Goes to show how 'important' that law was then, eh?  :-) 

Anyhow, the law itself did nothing, as was designed. She followed up with a much harsher set of laws and that was rejected. The slippery slope didn't work that time. 

And the current set of "common sense laws" would do equally nothing, by design. They target guns which are rarely used in crime and thus wouldn't change anything. So the next set of proposed laws would be much harsher, just like before...
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko the rate dropped a bit? It dropped 40%. That is not a bit. That is a fuckton. The population certainly didn't go up 40% so the raw numbers went down too.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Gun murder rates and even totals have been dropping since the 90's with or without (that's the key here!) the FAW being in place.
They are still dropping in spite of more guns being in America than ever.

You're just being obstinate now, as predicted, arguing over trivialities...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sRzVocu46Bo/VbcOVPjAKhI/AAAAAAAAE_g/SI5yezk3Vkc/s1600/homicide_chart.png
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko that's the key here? You said they went up. "She got her ban. Gun crime and deaths went UP."
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod I've seen lots of charts and reports that after both Brady and the FAW there was a slight bump in gun crimes and/or deaths. ie: the opposite of their intention. I've never seen an analysis showing how the FAW prevented a single crime or murder. Same for Canada's Rifle Registry, BTW... RiP that billion dollar pork-pit.

Since gun deaths were dropping already in the 90's? The FAW didn't cause a bigger drop when it started nor did they spike when it ended: it did absolutely nothing and the reportage at the time (I recall it clearly) complained how the "evil gun makers" were just by-passing the FAW by... by following its rules!! the Horror!!
All the MSM cried out for MORE laws and Feinstein tried to deliver, but it was political kryptonite: even the Dems couldn't stomach it.

ONCE AGAIN I POINT OUT that the guns targeted by the FAW are RARELY used in crimes or murders. If these Dems wanted to actually DO something about gun crime? they'd have to go after the vast majority of guns or it is useless, correct?

So here's the logic:
>If they want to confiscate the 'scary guns' covered by (for example) the FAW, and even you admit she does want that, then WHY would they NOT also want to confiscate the guns which actually are used in crimes and murders? Are you claiming that they'd happily violate the constitution for nothing, BUT to actually "save lives" they wouldn't do so with the guns which are actually used? O_o
>Confiscation of the 'scary' guns NOT used in the vast majority of crimes is clearly their desire. It makes zero sense at all that they would feel differently about the more dangerous guns actually used in the vast majority of crimes, especially since ALL their schemes fail completely without some sort of confiscation (under various euphemisms) being involved.

This has happened before in other nations, with laws followed by confiscation (or some euphemism) followed by more laws: why would America be any different? Because of it's unique Constitution, that's why.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko I don't disagree with you on what intent might be. That is something we can't know. However you made the statement that:

"Well, since the DNC top brass all say they want to disarm law-abiding Americans?"

I asked you to back it up and you have completely failed and now you're trying to move the goal posts.

"SAY" is not the same thing as what you are now interpreting what you think their intention may eventually be. Do you get that?

Stop saying things that are untrue.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Feinstein said it, even if she "only meant" the "scary guns" covered by the FAW? She said it and said it more than a few times iirc... she means it! How many times does she have to say it before it is true? Just once, unless you offer links proving she utterly renounced that position, which you have not done.

Hillary roundup, these searches take seconds dude, this stuff is just common knowledge:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/hillary-clinton-gun-confiscation-worth-looking-at/

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelhammond/2016/05/22/hillary-does-want-to-ban-guns-no-matter-what-politifact-says-n2166760

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/16/hillary-says-shed-consider-a-national-gun-buyback-program-like-australias-video/
"Cash for Clunkers" was an outright disaster BTW. It made matters far worse by taking working cars off the road, destroying their parts, driving up the prices of used cars and thus forcing people to keep driving their gas guzzlers longer than ever... it was on IAB... but Hillary thought it was great! :-O And that "gun control" would somehow work better on a national level... 

It's confiscation she's supporting, in the end, with euphemistic names of course.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
melcervini So that is her saying she would have taken all guns?
0
Reply
Female 6,689
holygod "every one of them"  sounds like 'all' to me?
1
Reply
Male 13,269
melcervini Here we go. OK. Have you ever looked into the source of that quote? Before you spread it?

She is NOT talking about all guns. She is talking specifically and only about assault rifles in relation to the assault weapons ban.

Don't spread misinformation.
-1
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod First they came for the 'scary black guns' then they came for the 'semi-automatic military style' (ie: 70% of the guns in existence) then they came for the single-shots...
It's the thin edge and you know it.

Edit: If it is not the thin edge? Why are they going after the guns LEAST used in crimes? Why not go after the ones MOST used? Answer: because they would fail, and rightfully so. They'd get laughed out of existence. But those 'scary black Ar-15 combat-like military style guns' are emotional targets eh? Who needs facts?
1
Reply
Male 13,269
Shelworth Ignorant comment is ignorant. Please explain to me why it is that if we spend trillions on policing the world, invading other countries, and killing hundreds of thousands of people we are the land of the free but if we instead spend it on education and healthcare we are a socialist dystopia.
3
Reply
Male 779
holygod Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a Libertarian, I just want the Federal Government to protect the country, and leave us the hell alone, and that's about it.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod If you don't have a military presence (or a next-door neighbor with one like Canada), other nations will stifle your international trade and thus cripple your economy.

You think the UK's 'Rule Britannia' and their huge navy back then were just a coincidence? Nope. And now neither is America's global presence and their huge army. Ditto for Russia, China and any other aspiring 'world powers' like Iran... it is part of the package, can't have one without the other.
Just for one example, there's others!
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod These are separate issues. Policing the world is a fools errand. And government run healthcare and education are crap. Maybe just let people keep their money and spend it how they like.
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage So you think we should shut down public schools?
1
Reply
Male 777
holygod Not until better alternatives are in place.
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage What would be a better alternative?
1
Reply
Male 777
holygod private schools
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage Cool. So what do poor people do? No education and therefore no opportunity to not be poor? So just a cycle of generational poverty?
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod nope, they go to private schools
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage Paid for by whom?
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod taxpayers
-3
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage so how is that different than public schools?
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod The schools are privately run.
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage So a private run school with no oversight or standards set by a governing body that can teach kids a curriculum of flat earth creationism / scientology / and basket weaving if they want? What could go wrong?
-1
Reply
Male 777
holygod Probably not much more than currently goes wrong.
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage Your experience with public schools must be vastly different than mine. I got a great education. My kids are getting a great education. Sucks that the wonderful people dedicating their lives to that have to be denigrated constantly by people like you.
-1
Reply
Male 777
holygod When people put down public schools, it isn't about the teachers or most of the staff. Sucks that people like you can't see the problems.
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage What's your problem with public schools?
-1
Reply
Male 777
holygod They are run by the government
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage If the government is so bad where you live I suggest you move.

Where I live the government runs excellent schools, beautiful parks, awesome community centers and pools, effective police and fire stations, and great community events and festivals. 

I think people who have a shitty opinion on the economy or the government are people who live in shitty areas. 
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod I guess if everything is perfect in your world then it must be perfect everywhere.
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage no. It is shitty lots off places. I wasn't born here. I moved here. If you don't like where you live, move. Your rationale is that your government is failing therefore all governments suck.
-1
Reply
Male 777
-1
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Then they are not private. By definition.
2
Reply
Male 777
LordJim yes they are
-3
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Not if paid for by the public tax. That means tax-payer oversight and conditions. Public money for private schools?
1
Reply
Male 777
LordJim Public money for students to go to private schools. I think we all agree that educating students is a valid way to spend tax dollars, but government run businesses are inefficient and they don't respond well to the people.
-1
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Corporations respond so much better to public concerns than elected representatives, don't they?  Why do we even need them?  
1
Reply
Male 777
LordJim Yes, m'lord. When there is competition, businesses do respond better. Government schools don't have competition.
-1
Reply
Male 9,481
johncourage Help me understand here. You want to forcibly take money from citizens (that's taxation) and, on a national scale, give it to privately-run and privately-owned businesses? For the national benefit?

That's more coercive than anything socialism mandates; it's fascism.
1
Reply
Male 1,861
squrlz4ever Every single person involved in "Public Schools" makes a profit. Don't kid yourself, nobody's there for free. Except for maybe the PTA and that would remain unchanged :-)

Each child would have a 'voucher' that lets them attend any school their parents want them to, and will accept them of course. 
Choice: it's supposed to be very popular with progressives but not when it comes to children for some reason.

I await IAB's linguists to lecture you on the meaning of "fascism" now... any second...
0
Reply
Male 1,864
gohikineko Handing over something as valuable as education to corporations is going to end in disaster. Look at DeVry.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
marsii Look at the Public vs Private schools results in America. Look at Public vs Private schools almost anywhere in the entire world!
What about Universities? Aren't are ALL the top ones Private and not Public? I guess Harvard and Yale are just bad, eh? No one wants to go there! 
Why is the entire University system run 'for profit'? :/ Why do every top Democrat all send their kids to private schools?? Literally all of them. Repubs too of course but...
0
Reply
Male 1,864
gohikineko I did pretty well going to state schools and looking at Harvard and the like: it's not the classes you take it's who you meet.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
gohikineko You don't seem to understand what "for profit" and "not for profit" means. "Not for profit" does not mean that everyone is a volunteer. Almost all non-profits have paid employees. The head of the Red Cross and Salvation army make $250,000+ a year. Ministers at churches get paid. So does the organist.

Not for profit means the entity itself doesn't make money. Money is not the goal. A school for example determines what they can do with the funding they have and they spend it all on supplies, salaries, costs, etc.

A for profit organization's sole goal is to have as much money left over after expenses as possible.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
holygod Not 'as much as possible' but as much as is feasible/sustainable or marketable. There's a world of difference there... your definition is poor. D at best.

So does a private school under a voucher system: the cost per child to the Gov't (taxpayer) is identical: rather than blindly plunk the money into the LOCAL public school (even if the child does not attend it!) they send the money to the school the child actually goes to. That's how Manitoba has done it for decades now... and our Public schools are excellent compared to y'all's common core...
If that school charges extra? it's entirely up to the parents to pay, not the taxpayers. Where is the loss?
0
Reply
Male 9,311
gohikineko  and will accept them of course.  

Aye, there's the rub. We all pay tax but we don't all have access to equal education. The school will choose, but everyone pays. Who is running these? Religious groups obviously, but who else. 
0
Reply
Male 1,861
LordJim In no imaginable scenario would ALL Public schools close. That simply has not happened in any nation that has a public/private system, ok?

Various ethnic groups run private schools around here too, chaos has not descended on us yet... 

Are you suggesting religious groups should not be allowed to run their own private schools? In parts of Canada they (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans) ran large chunks of various Public schools for ages!! On the taxpayer dime eh? I think those are all shut down now though... maybe not in Quebec yet?
0
Reply
Male 9,311
gohikineko  Are you suggesting religious groups should not be allowed to run their own private schools?

Yes.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
LordJim Wel, ok then! :-) 
Good luck with that opinion eh?
0
Reply
Male 777
squrlz4ever redistributing the money to parents so that they can pick the schools isn't fascism
0
Reply
Male 9,481
johncourage Are you talking about a voucher system? Explain to me how this wealth-redistribution plan for educational purposes would work. I am a little fuzzy, so to speak, on just exactly what it is you're advocating.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
squrlz4ever Allowing the tax-paying parents to send their own tax money (not other people's, THEIRS) to the school which actually educates their child, rather than sending it to the local catchment area which does nothing? 

That is choice, the opposite of fascism/totalitarianism. That's the backbone of vouchers, the freedom & flexibility. Works perfectly in my Province, has for decades now. We have a flourishing system of small, high quality private schools and the public system remains perfectly intact. Win-win all around.
0
Reply
Male 9,481
gohikineko Thanks. I know little about school voucher programs and need to learn more. Your comment helps.
0
Reply
Male 1,861
squrlz4ever You're welcome. I'm just speaking about my knowledge from local laws, I'm presuming the American ideas are the same. It works great here!
1
Reply
Male 777
squrlz4ever [deleted comment: personal attack]

I said "read a book" and then maybe I called him a name that he deserved because of something else that happened in the thread.
-2
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage I understand you may be feeling a little beleaguered but maybe have a bit of a walk, a cup of tea or something. If the only argument you have left is abuse I would advise taking a break, reviewing your position and the evidence you have for it, re-group. At least try to retain some dignity.
1
Reply
Male 777
LordJim [deleted comment: personal attack]

No, it wasn't. I would not attack the Lord of Jim.
-1
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Don't let Mr Temper spoil your day, as my old nanny used to say. Sadistic bitch that she was.
1
Reply
Male 9,481
Shelworth Shelton, we're already paying more--for less. American life expectancy has fallen below other advanced nations, yet we pay more for our healthcare than any other country on Earth.

If this is such a potential disaster--with hundreds of millions of starving, gun-toting, angry citizens running in the streets, as you portray it--please explain why Medicare right now is such a success.
2
Reply
Male 9,311
Shelworth Yes, these are the exact policies which have reduced Western Europe, Canada and Australia to the chaotic failed states they are today; petty warlords,  collapsed infrastrucure, crumbling cities, mass graves...

It's hell, I wouldn't come if I were you. Most of Scandanavia has been reduced to canibalism.
5
Reply
Male 777
LordJim No, these are the exact policies which have held these nations back from achieving their potential as well as providing significantly worse health care and opportunities to their citizens. Well, except for some of Scandinavia where they have embraced the teachings of capitalism.  
-3
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage "providing significantly worse health care"

Are you fucking with me?
3
Reply
Male 777
holygod maybe, are you a brunette with a sweet ass? I was curious what your name was but didn't want to ask again.
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage Sorry, your IQ must be this high to ride this ride.
2
Reply
Male 777
holygod [deleted comment: personal attack]

No, it wasn't. I apologize to holygod. I did not mean to offend.
-3
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage I didn't take it as an attack. A joke is a joke.
0
Reply
Male 777
holygod cool
0
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage Nope, that's actually exactly what my sister says to guys, so you wouldn't have a shot with her either.
-1
Reply
Male 777
holygod I bet you are a lot of fun at parties.
-1
Reply
Male 13,269
johncourage oh princess I was just joking. You're very smart.
-2
Reply
Male 777
0
Reply
Male 9,311
holygod American health care is American and as such is the best in the world. No actual data required. USA! USA!
1
Reply
Male 13,269
LordJim Data has a well known liberal bias. Fake news.
0
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage  significantly worse health care 

And yet oddly we don't see people clamouring for a change to the US system of health care.

Their potential? Take any serious measurement of societal health and tell me who holds the top ten slots. I'll wait.
0
Reply
Male 777
LordJim Any study that doesn't have the US in the top 10 is a joke.
-4
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage So that would be evry study.  Thank you. Now I understand your position on actual facts. It boils down to USA! USA!  You don't have anything of substance to bring to this discussion, do you?
3
Reply
Male 777
LordJim Most studies have the US in the top ten.
0
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Examples? C'mon, show your evidence. That is not an unreasonable request.
1
Reply
Male 777
0
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage Can you possibly be serious? I ask for data and this is the best you can do? This?
3
Reply
Male 777
LordJim You're right. The US sucks. OMG. Everything is so lame.

http://www.averageheight.co/average-penis-size-by-country
0
Reply
Male 2,168
johncourage The link doesn't show that The US sucks or doesn't suck; only that if you're in the US you won't have to suck very much at a time.
0
Reply
Male 777
0
Reply
Male 9,311
johncourage USA comes in at #96 for penis size. I'm not sure what point you thought you were making, but fine.

In most real studies of societal outcomes the US generally comes in at around #14. I'm not saying that sucks but you need to be doing considerably better before you tell more succesful countries what they are doing wrong.
1
Reply
Male 9,481
johncourage John, honest question, and please don't take offense at this. Have you been to Scandinavia? Or Europe, generally? I won't shame you if not. If you claim you have, on the other paw, I might ask a question or two to verify.
1
Reply
Male 777
squrlz4ever We're cool but I've lost respect for you. I hope deleting the post prevents others from ganging up on me. I guess lesson learned. Don't share. Nobody is interested and they just want to tear you down and call you a liar. Fun times.
0
Reply
Male 9,481
johncourage Hey, again. I'm glad we're cool. I've already apologized for that quip to HG. I'll say now I wish I hadn't played "gotcha" earlier. Not something a moderator should be doing. So that's two mistakes on my part. I'm sorry again.

I don't want anyone to be ganged up on. That's why I've signed on as a moderator. I hope I can regain some respect from you going forward.

Just to make sure there isn't any misunderstanding, I didn't do any of the deletes of comments in this thread. The site owner may have; I'm not sure though. I don't see any entries in the Mod Actions log regarding Deletes in this thread, and the other moderators (i.e., mods other than Fancy) record them as part of the job of being a mod.

Also: I hope you can try to follow the Nightclub Rule on here. We try to enforce that with an even paw across the entire community. We don't want to discourage diverse viewpoints, debating, or even sparring, but things shouldn't get to the point that, if you were in a nightclub, a bouncer would be intervening.

Final note: I'm loving your new avatar. It helps me see you as an individual, helps me get a sense of your personality, and those are great things when it comes to building bridges.
1
Reply
Male 5,685
squrlz4ever Hell, a short jaunt to Canada and have a discussion on Health Care there with anyone...
3
Reply
Male 9,619
kalron Or why not here with you know the multiple Canadians that lurk these  forums ;)
0
Reply
Male 777
Shelworth truth
-3
Reply
Male 9,619
She makes salient points.  Say what you will about her and her beliefs but it's hard to argue against that point we complain about not having money for healthcare but that question NEVER comes up when it's for corporate welfare or military spending.
3
Reply
Male 580
normalfreak2 Agreed. The new tax cut bill will cost about $1.3 trillion per year in lost revenue and the new military budget passed totaled $716 billion. 
2
Reply
Male 572
mrsnowmeiser And...Trumpco managed to find 12 billion to aid farmers hurt by his tariff game.
2
Reply
Male 777
mrsnowmeiser tax cuts NEVER cost money. If there is less revenue then the legislature should spend less money.
-5
Reply
Male 1,856
she is speaking your language, if your language is "take all the money from working people, and give it to lay-abouts who will waste it, and demand even more"
-2
Reply
Male 13,269
spanz I have a full time 9-5 job. I'm also a fairly busy freelance designer. I also run a party rental business. I also sell a product online. I'm currently developing an app. I would bet you everything I have that I work more than you do.

I get so sick of the assumption that if you agree that healthcare and education should be a right and not a privilege you are or are advocating for "lay-abouts". 

I happen to be against welfare, cash assistance, public housing, and food stamps for those over 25. My idea of a social safety net is excellent public education through college, public healthcare, and a public works program with a living wage.
0
Reply
Male 13,269
Hey guys, while I think the whole interview is good it is really her answer to the question at 7:38 that I was focusing on.
1
Reply
Male 9,481
holygod I like her, and I liked her answer. Yes, it's remarkable that people immediately object to the cost! the cost! when it comes to healthcare programs--but we're already paying more, right now, for a grossly inefficient system that's resulting in shorter lives and needless mortalities.

At the same time, wanna wage a two trillion dollar war of choice, and pay for all of it on the national credit card? No objections. Done.

Early after Ocasio-Cortez's primary victory, I saw a couple interviews where her knowledge of issues was thin and she didn't have the savvy to immediately state, "I'm still researching that." So a few early missteps on her part, I'd say. I can't fault her for it too heavily; most people her age are preoccupied with taking photos of their entrees and desserts and posting them on Instagram. She's gotten better since then, interview by interview.
3
Reply
Male 21,778
I like her too. She’s A bit extreme on some of the platform she ran on, but it seems like she wants to help, as opposed to figuring out how her job can benefit her.
3
Reply
Male 580
fancylad She's essentially a New Deal Democrat. If she was running back in the 40s and 50s, her policies wouldn't be very remarkable at all. Same goes for Sanders. 
4
Reply
Male 1,864
I'm not all for going full tilt left so she better be competent.
1
Reply
Male 9,311
marsii Full tilt left? OK. In Western Europe she would be regarded as a middle of the road social democrat, as would Sanders.
3
Reply
Male 1,864
LordJim Western Europeans don't win too many elections over here
1
Reply
Male 9,311
marsii But we can show that the model works. Take from that what you will.
1
Reply
Male 1,864
LordJim If people like her lose elections in states where it matters then the Circus goes on and the other models don't mean shit.
0
Reply
Male 9,311
marsii OK.
0
Reply
Male 2,168
marsii Amen!
1
Reply