The 2018 Midterms

[Runnin]

I wouldn't vote for her just on the basis of using woman instead of female. Would be just as ridiculous as any male Governor saying he is a man governor. Hillary doing it was bad enough.

lol

[57Brave]

Megan Greenwell
‏Verified account @megreenwell

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was seen as such a longshot against

Joe Crowley that the @nytimes didn't dedicate a single article to her campaign.

[mqt]

Megan Greenwell
‏Verified account @megreenwell

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was seen as such a longshot against

Joe Crowley that the @nytimes didn't dedicate a single article to her campaign.

That’s honestly pretty cool.

[cajunrevenge]

She is part of the justice democrats group that was founded by 2 people from the Bernie campaign and some YouTube news shows. They are jamming their foot in the door this political cycle. I hope it keeps growing.

[sturg33]

Happy an establishment guy lost.

Not happy we have another braindead socialist

[cajunrevenge]

they are atleast honest about what they want.

[sturg33]

they are atleast honest about what they want.

Ok... What they want is horrifying. Why give them power

[57Brave]

Ok... What they want is horrifying. Why give them power

because the current model is humming right along ?

[cajunrevenge]

ok, we can have public debates about the issues. They are also pro weed and are targeting many of the anti pot left.

[sturg33]

because the current model is humming right along ?

I'd say on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being socialism and 10 be free markets, we're at around 3 today.

We need to go the other way, not closer to the 100% failed track record of socialism

[sturg33]

ok, we can have public debates about the issues. They are also pro weed and are targeting many of the anti pot left.

Just need to support pro freedom candidates... Not the opposite

[Runnin]

I'd say on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being socialism and 10 be free markets, we're at around 3 today.

We need to go the other way, not closer to the 100% failed track record of socialism

I don't agree with your "3", but regardless, the social net must be re-worked and strengthened. Medical advances and for whatever reason, people are living longer and the trend is continuing. Retirees can't afford the medical costs for 20 years of retirement. Very few people can. The "free market" will not solve every problem.

[sturg33]

I don't agree with your "3", but regardless, the social net must be re-worked and strengthened. Medical advances and for whatever reason, people are living longer and the trend is continuing. Retirees can't afford the medical costs for 20 years of retirement. Very few people can. The "free market" will not solve every problem.

Would be fun to give it a try. as it stands, we've highly subsidized medical care and wouldnt you know it, costs have exploded

I looked at this lady's positions and she goes a step further and says housing is a right.

Holy ****

[Julio3000]

Would be fun to give it a try. as it stands, we've highly subsidized medical care and wouldnt you know it, costs have exploded

I looked at this lady's positions and she goes a step further and says housing is a right.

Holy ****

This should be pretty instructive for the unicorn guy. Run and elect candidates at the local, state, a national level to build a critical mass for your beliefs, instead of casting a protest vote every four years.

Your take on health care continues to be weird. In health care, the sectors with the most government involvement tend to be the most cost-effective, except where the ability to negotiate prices has been legislated away (see Medicare part D and parts of ACA). So-called Medicare for all would be much cheaper per patient than the current system, which mandates a for-profit middleman--you just don't like the funding mechanism.

As for housing being a right? What's to argue, unless you want the working class to be poor, insecure and desperate ... oh. I get it.

[Julio3000]

I, er, want to hear more about this 1-10 scale.

[sturg33]

How can something be a right if it require the money and labor of another person?

[Julio3000]

How can something be a right if it require the money and labor of another person?

According to your ideology, sure. The fruits of others' labor are required to buy me a yacht or a beach house. But the fruits of my labor should not be required to provide for basic amenities for the people who labor on my behalf.

But I'm not really sure what stone tablets your understanding of rights were handed down from. To me, workers being secure in housing and health care are workers who are able to live a life that is less beholden to the Company, and that makes for a more just and equitable society. I'm not sure where that boils down to anything other than a political disagreement. Your protestations about "requiring the money and labor of another person" just aren't very moving on this score.

[sturg33]

According to your ideology, sure. The fruits of others' labor are required to buy me a yacht or a beach house. But the fruits of my labor should not be required to provide for basic amenities for the people who labor on my behalf.

But I'm not really sure what stone tablets your understanding of rights were handed down from. To me, workers being secure in housing and health care are workers who are able to live a life that is less beholden to the Company, and that makes for a more just and equitable society. I'm not sure where that boils down to anything other than a political disagreement. Your protestations about "requiring the money and labor of another person" just aren't very moving on this score.

Never heard this from you before

Look - if something is a right, that means the government must guarantee it. If housing or healthcare is guaranteed, that requires government FORCE of others, impinging on their individual liberty.

It's obvious that you are fine with doing that. I am not. I don't think any individual should be forced to do anything for someone other than . him/herself

It's clear you disagree. That's fine. But let's stop calling them "rights" ok? Let's call them what they are, more entitlements. You should embrace that, because it's clearly much easier to take away people's rights in this country than it is to take away their entitlements.

[Julio3000]

Why not just call them rights? I mean, if the polity were to decide that they viewed them that way? Like, from what is your position derived? You said it, I said it: we disagree politically. That's it.

[sturg33]

Why not just call them rights? I mean, if the polity were to decide that they viewed them that way? Like, from what is your position derived? You said it, I said it: we disagree politically. That's it.

Because rights mean that the government must provide it.

That means the government needs money, so they have to confiscate that. That means the government needs land. That means the government needs builders.

What if they don't get the voluntary action of any of those? Then they have to force it or take it.

This isn't hard.

We have to stop calling everything we want a right. Why isn't food and water a right? Internet? Cars? Hell - if we want to guarantee the well-being of everyone just call making everyone rich a right.

Problem is, it doesn't work. It never has and never will. We're already ****ing $21T in debt with 4x that in unfunded liabilities and this moron wants to add free housing for all to the list.

Oh, AND she wants free higher education for all added to the list.

And here's the best one:

She wants to make a "federal jobs guarantee" LOL

A Federal Jobs Guarantee would create a baseline quality for employments that guarantees a minimum $15 wage (pegged to inflation), full healthcare, and paid child and sick leave for all

Let's add this to the human rights shall we?