The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...27 28 29 · >>
mrmhead 15 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#16New Post! Feb 17, 2019 @ 19:26:14
@gakINGKONG Said

I’ve not checked but is anybody up on what AOC is doing right now?

major media is quoting all of what she says and then gauging everyone’s reaction. It’s like they’re setting up these dog fights over and over and over again.



Yeah, because another mass shooting is just old hat these days.
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#17New Post! Feb 17, 2019 @ 20:32:15
@gakINGKONG Said

I’ve not checked but is anybody up on what AOC is doing right now?

major media is quoting all of what she says and then gauging everyone’s reaction. It’s like they’re setting up these dog fights over and over and over again.



Its Sunday.

They are taking the day off from reporting on her.

FoxNews' last story on her was yesterday, but don't worry they will have something on her tomorrow.


Note: The Hill is reporting that Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) is blaming ACO for Amazon not moving their HQ to NYC.
gakINGKONG On about 4 hours ago




, Florida
#18New Post! Feb 17, 2019 @ 22:37:13
I bet you that AOC loves balloons and clowns. I bet you the AOC loves butterflies and rainbows and lollipops and candy canes. I bet you the AOC loves to sing jingle bells. I bet you the AOC loves to hold hands with little kids and do ring around the Rosie. I bet you that she likes to make snowcones and pass them out to homeless people.
gakINGKONG On about 4 hours ago




, Florida
#19New Post! Feb 17, 2019 @ 22:38:37
@mrmhead Said

Yeah, because another mass shooting is just old hat these days.



. Listen to me Mas shooting is overrated. It’s only video games that make mass shootings seem interesting.

When you kill somebody in real life it’s not like quintin Tarantino.

Dead people are just dead.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#20New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 00:40:25
@chaski Said

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)

....

> If you view her vote as part of the Democrat block, 235 members, her her vote is worth 0.42% relative to any piece of legislation being voted on.



Michael Brendan Dougherty at the National Review measures her influence as 50% of Democratic Presidential candidates. He says that "half of them have rushed to co-sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s non-binding resolution proposing a 'Green New Deal' ..."

National Review
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#21New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 01:37:28
@Ghyda Said

Michael Brendan Dougherty at the National Review measures her influence as 50% of Democratic Presidential candidates. He says that "half of them have rushed to co-sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s non-binding resolution proposing a 'Green New Deal' ..."

National Review



I believe it and I suppose it makes sense... in today's world.

After all, Republicans/Conservatives are giving her a voice, which in politics is power.... and it isn't like the Green New Deal is all that shocking.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#22New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 01:53:23
@chaski Said

I believe it and I suppose it makes sense... in today's world.

After all, Republicans/Conservatives are giving her a voice, which in politics is power.... and it isn't like the Green New Deal is all that shocking.



The proposal to build railroads across (or under?) the oceans caught my grandfathers attention.

He told me that his father had worked on the staff of an Engineering/Aerospace company in the 1950s and 1960s, and he had read one of his father's reports about digging tunnels.

One item in the report detailed a plan to dig a tunnel from Los Angeles to New York City. The tunnel would slope in such a way as to use the earth's gravity to propel trains. Maybe it would work from New York to Paris.
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#23New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 02:20:27
@Ghyda Said

The proposal to build railroads across (or under?) the oceans caught my grandfathers attention.



Except the Green New Deal does not propose to build railroads either across or under any ocean.

That is a far right republican/conservative created myth (aka lie).

The Green New Deal also does not propose to get rid of air travel... that also being a far right republican/conservative created myth (aka lie).
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#24New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 02:44:46
@Ghyda Said

The proposal to build railroads across (or under?) the oceans caught my grandfathers attention.

He told me that his father had worked on the staff of an Engineering/Aerospace company in the 1950s and 1960s, and he had read one of his father's reports about digging tunnels.

One item in the report detailed a plan to dig a tunnel from Los Angeles to New York City. The tunnel would slope in such a way as to use the earth's gravity to propel trains. Maybe it would work from New York to Paris.



Answer Part 2:

So, let’s say that you live in LA.

You have business in San Francisco.

You need to go tomorrow. Your meeting is very important but only a few hours.

>>>You will need to take air travel; roughly 1 ½ to 3 hours of travel.<<<

But Chaski, why can’t I drive or take a train?

Driving or taking a train will just take too long. A car would take 5 ½ hours. A train will take 7+ hours. Each of these modes of travel will require an overnight stay; meals + lodging. That is, they will cost you more money. You want to spend less money, and maybe spend the night in your own bed.

WAIT! What if there was another option? Let’s say there was a low cost high speed rail that could get you there in 3 or 4 hours… or even less? In that case “air travel would not be necessary”. You could travel... not spend the night... not spend extra money on food and lodging... and get home to your loved ones... all in one day... without having to use air travel.

Air travel would NOT be necessary.

That is what the Green New Deal is talking about.

No where does it discuss trans oceanic rail.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#25New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 04:50:06
@chaski Said

Answer Part 2:

So, let’s say that you live in LA.

You have business in San Francisco.

You need to go tomorrow. Your meeting is very important but only a few hours.

>>>You will need to take air travel; roughly 1 ½ to 3 hours of travel.<<<

But Chaski, why can’t I drive or take a train?

Driving or taking a train will just take too long. A car would take 5 ½ hours. A train will take 7+ hours. Each of these modes of travel will require an overnight stay; meals + lodging. That is, they will cost you more money. You want to spend less money, and maybe spend the night in your own bed.

WAIT! What if there was another option? Let’s say there was a low cost high speed rail that could get you there in 3 or 4 hours… or even less? In that case “air travel would not be necessary”. You could travel... not spend the night... not spend extra money on food and lodging... and get home to your loved ones... all in one day... without having to use air travel.

Air travel would NOT be necessary.

That is what the Green New Deal is talking about.

No where does it discuss trans oceanic rail.


Okay, I misunderstood. I heard the word, transatlantic and somehow I connected that to transatlantic trains.

However, the idea of digging a hole, which allows the use of gravity to propel trains, sounds like a tree-huggers dream come true.
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#26New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 04:57:13
@Ghyda Said

Okay, I misunderstood. I heard the word, transatlantic and somehow I connected that to transatlantic trains.

However, the idea of digging a hole, which allows the use of gravity to propel trains, sounds like a tree-huggers dream come true.


I agree.

Moving beyond the topic at hand and into futuristic make believe: If "we" did have the technology & money/resources to make a transoceanic rail system... would it be bad?

Note: There is no way you would get me (Chaski), willingly, on a train that traveled for 2000+ miles at any speed at (roughly) 13,000 feet below the surface.... that under water tunnel stuff isn't happening for me.
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#27New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 06:37:58
@chaski Said

I agree.

Moving beyond the topic at hand and into futuristic make believe: If "we" did have the technology & money/resources to make a transoceanic rail system... would it be bad?

Note: There is no way you would get me (Chaski), willingly, on a train that traveled for 2000+ miles at any speed at (roughly) 13,000 feet below the surface.... that under water tunnel stuff isn't happening for me.


As a person who lives on an island in the middle of a giant f***-off ocean, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of such a rail system. Disregarding the questions of feasibility and practicality of course.
Leon On June 21, 2020




San Diego, California
#28New Post! Feb 18, 2019 @ 20:37:02
It doesn’t matter if the New Green Deal or the 70% tax plan is doable or realistic. The reason why the GOP is terrified of this lady is because she isn’t afraid to get public traction in fantasizing about bold ideas. Heck, it’s the same reason Trump won.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#29New Post! Feb 19, 2019 @ 13:23:04
@chaski Said

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)

> Freshman member of the House of Representatives.

> Near zero legislative experience.

> Near zero political experience.

> Even if she had some sort of long standing relationships and network of support from other members of the H.R., which she does not, she is one vote in 435... that is, her vote is worth 0.23% relative to any piece of legislation being voted on.

> If you view her vote as part of the Democrat block, 235 members, her her vote is worth 0.42% relative to any piece of legislation being voted on.

> Freshmen members of Congress, even freshmen members of the Senate, are usually viewed by other congressmen (or congress persons if you prefer), as newbies, or greenhorns, that is they are typically treated with a shut-up, keep your head down, follow "our" lead attitude.

And yet 21st Century Republicans & Conservatives (men in particular from what I've observed) are frightened to death of AOC... they have their underwear all in a knot and crammed up their rear end over this woman.

They, 21st Century Republicans & Conservatives (men in particular from what I've observed), have given AOC a voice, and what amounts to power, beyond her position, beyond her experience.

I am literally LMAO every day at the crying, sniveling and whining that all these snowflakes display... they are frightened to death, they seem even more frightened of her than of Democrat power brokers like Pelosi.



Just now coming into this thread and I'll admit I haven't read any of the other posts...

Do we really have to keep using the term "snowflake" though to label anyone who expresses concern over a public figure's politics? It's a term du jour of the extreme right for people who get offended at anything and it's ridiculous, sure, but is it beyond reasonable for a Republican to have criticisms of someone being elected into the legislature (at any level) who is young and groomable and who claims she's a socialist?

Whether or not one is a fan of socialism is another thread, but why is it so unusual or laughable to you that people who adamantly reject socialism would be fixated on her after she gets a seat in Congress? At what point are conservatives allowed to express concern? Is there a threshold she has to cross? I mean...do they have to wait until she's a Senator? Speaker of the House? Running for the oval office?

When is it okay in your eyes for someone to be vocal about her without being called a snowflake? Or is your signature just for show?

She says she supports the abolition of immigration and customs enforcement. What if someone with the exact same credentials publicly said they identified as a member of the fascist party and that illegal immigrants should be put to death on the spot? I mean...lets take it to the other extreme.

If it's okay for her to condone the "nothing" end of the spectrum, someone should be allowed to condone the "all" end of it, right? Would you call someone a snowflake for having issues with that? I'd certainly have a problem with it even if that person had no experience in legislation (actually...especially if that was the case).

Maybe I'm missing something and you're referring to someone in the media going over the edge and making outlandish claims about her? I don't know...I just don't see the issue with conservatives being critical of a liberal member of the elected body any more than I would of a liberal having things to say about someone with extremely conservative views representing them in our government. I am not, myself concerned with AOC for the record.

Maybe I'm a snowflake though.
chaski 6 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#30New Post! Feb 19, 2019 @ 15:36:57
@Eaglebauer Said


Or is your signature just for show?




I'll start with this part:

I don't see how my post stopped anyone from believing whatever they want to and fully exercising their 1st Amendment rights including freedom of speech.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...27 28 29 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Dec 31, 2012 @ 11:41
17 778
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed Dec 02, 2015 @ 23:59
1 142
New posts   News & Current Events
Thu Jul 26, 2012 @ 11:07
109 7527
New posts   Art & Literature
Wed Jul 23, 2008 @ 02:01
7 776
New posts   Animal Rights
Mon Jun 08, 2009 @ 13:25
12 1221