What do Democrats see in Ocasio-Cortez?

[Gigimo]

I'll let the investigators themselves tell you. Best to get the information about investigations from the investigators themselves, isn't it? Here ya go (again):

Jussie Smollett, Star of ‘Empire,’ Attacked in What Police Call a Possible Hate Crime

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/empire-jussie-smollett-hate-crime-attack

Rush asks for FBI hate crime investigation into attack of 'Empire' star

Police Say 'Empire' Actor Jussie Smollett Attacked In Possible Hate Crime

‘Empire’ star Jussie Smollett attack investigated as a hate crime by Chicago police

Chicago Prosecutor Kim Foxx Subpoenaed over Handling of Smollett Case

 

[Aldebaran]

Have you seen this yet: Osundairo Brothers Sue Jussie Smollett's Lawyers

I used to wonder if those guys would ever do something about being dragged into that situation.

 

[Aldebaran]

Chicago Prosecutor Kim Foxx Subpoenaed over Handling of Smollett Case

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[Gigimo]

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Yes it will interesting to say the least and it finally looks like some folks in Chicago are getting tired of the corruption and are going to do something about it.

Speaking of corruption this has been all over the radio and TV local to me since it was released yesterday: These current, ex-Dayton employees face corruption charges in FBI probe

It's being said this is just the tip of the iceberg (more indictments coming) and I'm curious as to how high up the food chain this will eventually go, some say it will land in a few different mayors laps.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes it will interesting to say the least and it finally looks like some folks in Chicago are getting tired of the corruption and are going to do something about it.

Speaking of corruption this has been all over the radio and TV local to me since it was released yesterday: These current, ex-Dayton employees face corruption charges in FBI probe

It's being said this is just the tip of the iceberg (more indictments coming) and I'm curious as to how high up the food chain this will eventually go, some say it will land in a few different mayors laps.

It almost sounds like a State version of what we've been seeing over the last 2 years at the federal level. I don't live in IL, but have relatives that do. There's so much about that state that makes me not want to be there (again) and feel sorry for those who are still there.

 

[Catfisher]

It's an embarrassment that someone like AOC can get elected. But, it is what it is. Education levels in America have dramatically declined over the past 40 years, despite $1.5 trillion in student loan debt.

 

[Gigimo]

There's so much about that state that makes me not want to be there (again) and feel sorry for those who are still there.

I know what you mean I've been there a few times myself (business) and have no screaming urge to go back anytime soon. Although the Spaghetti Warehouse close to my hotel was fairly decent better than the one here in town.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

It's an embarrassment that someone like AOC can get elected. But, it is what it is. Education levels in America have dramatically declined over the past 40 years, despite $1.5 trillion in student loan debt.

It's an embarrassment that some like Trump can get elected, especially when he has the speech level of a fourth-grader. He's also an admitted adulterer and womanizer. Not only is he twice divorced and in his third marriage to his former mistress, but he also groped multiple women and then used vulgar language to brag about it. He had an affair with a porn star and paid her off during his presidential campaign to silence her about their affair. I'm mentioning all of this about Donald Trump because many of the same conservatives who now faithfully support and defend him spent the eight years of former Bill Clinton's presidency pointing their judgmental finger at him and repeatedly condemning him for: (1) being an adulterer and a womanizer, and (2) for sexually groping multiple women.

And this ironic change for conservatives to now support a man who could rival Bill Clinton in sexual deviant behavior toward women (and adulterous philandering) has sparked many extremely critical articles regarding the validity of the Christian witness of Evangelical Christianity. Articles with titles such as: "the great Evangelical compromise," "Evangelicals abandon their principles," "Evangelical convictions for sell," and other articles like the following: Trump-Loving Christians Owe Bill Clinton an Apology and Evangelicals slammed Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. So why does Trump get a pass?

But it is what it is. Unless...

Donald Trump had kept to his longstanding liberal views as a Democrat while he was still campaigning for the presidency instead of professing to be a Republican in order for him to gain the unwavering support of so many conservative Christians. After all, he did say that he has a great relationship with Evangelicals and he also said: “They say I have the most loyal people, where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible" (Donald Trump: They say I could ‘shoot somebody’ and still have support). Sadly, I think he's right.

There's one more ironic incident that has occurred in all of this... And that is conservative Christians pointing a judgmental finger at liberal politicians or at liberals in general when they support Trump.

Trump's most notable insults

Trump's Long History of Racism

All False statements involving Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s Long Record of Degrading Women

A quick guide to the people and groups Donald Trump has insulted

A running list of all the worst things Donald Trump has said about women. It’s long.

 

[Catfisher]

It's an embarrassment that some like Trump can get elected, especially when he has the speech level of a fourth-grader. He's also an admitted adulterer and womanizer. Not only is he twice divorced and in his third marriage to his former mistress, but he also groped multiple women and then used vulgar language to brag about it. He had an affair with a porn star and paid her off during his presidential campaign to silence her about their affair. I'm mentioning all of this about Donald Trump because many of the same conservatives who now faithfully support and defend him spent the eight years of former Bill Clinton's presidency pointing their judgmental finger at him and repeatedly condemning him for: (1) being an adulterer and a womanizer, and (2) for sexually groping multiple women.

And this ironic change for conservatives to now support a man who could rival Bill Clinton in sexual deviant behavior toward women (and adulterous philandering) has sparked many extremely critical articles regarding the validity of the Christian witness of Evangelical Christianity. Articles with titles such as: "the great Evangelical compromise," "Evangelicals abandon their principles," "Evangelical convictions for sell," and other articles like the following: Trump-Loving Christians Owe Bill Clinton an Apology and Evangelicals slammed Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. So why does Trump get a pass?

But it is what it is. Unless...

Donald Trump had kept to his longstanding liberal views as a Democrat while he was still campaigning for the presidency instead of professing to be a Republican in order for him to gain the unwavering support of so many conservative Christians. After all, he did say that he has a great relationship with Evangelicals and he also said: “They say I have the most loyal people, where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible" (Donald Trump: They say I could ‘shoot somebody’ and still have support). Sadly, I think he's right.

There's one more ironic incident that has occurred in all of this... And that is conservative Christians pointing a judgmental finger at liberal politicians or at liberals in general when they support Trump.

It actually is a shame that Trump was elected. Only slightly less of a shame since the alternative was a criminal career politician who sold influence for money during her tenure in public office.

Again, Washington DC is one of the most degenerate groups of people in human history. That people root for a political team like it's a sporting event is pretty sad.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

It actually is a shame that Trump was elected. Only slightly less of a shame since the alternative was a criminal career politician who sold influence for money during her tenure in public office.

Again, Washington DC is one of the most degenerate groups of people in human history. That people root for a political team like it's a sporting event is pretty sad.

I can certainly agree with you about Hillary Clinton. I think she and Trump are both morally and politically corrupt and that's why I didn't vote for either one of them. And I agree with you about Washington DC too. I know that people can get very passionate about political issues. I'll admit that I'm one of those people and I have been for quite some time now. I typically lean left except on the abortion issue. I'm a liberal, but I'm not a Democrat. I'm also of the opinion that the left wing and the right wing are part of the same bird and both wings are foul. That's one of the reasons why I voted Third Party during the last presidential election because I'm really fed up with both of these wings.

 

[Catfisher]

I can certainly agree with you about Hillary Clinton. I think she and Trump are both morally and politically corrupt and that's why I didn't vote for either one of them. And I agree with you about Washington DC too. I know that people can get very passionate about political issues. I'll admit that I'm one of those people and I have been for quite some time now. I typically lean left except on the abortion issue. I'm a liberal, but I'm not a Democrat. I'm also of the opinion that the left wing and the right wing are part of the same bird and both wings are foul. That's one of the reasons why I voted Third Party during the last presidential election because I'm really fed up with both of these wings.

They are part of the same corrupt uniparty. That's in part why they don't like Trump. I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. He wasn't my first choice.

I'm not a liberal. I believe in a very small federal government and having the states and local governments have more resources and freedom to run their jurisdictions as their people want.

America's a large country now. With 350,000,000 people to govern, it's almost impossible for 535 people in Congress to come up with a single policy that works for everyone. But there is so much money flowing through Washington, they will never reduce the size of government willingly.

 

[Gigimo]

America's a large country now. With 350,000,000 people to govern, it's almost impossible for 535 people in Congress to come up with a single policy that works for everyone.

Especially when they don't even try. A lot of it being proposed/passed is to benefit small groups of people (can you say pandering for votes) not the population as a whole, and some folks wonder why Congress approval rating is in the toilet.

 

[His student]

The news media loves and so do a lot of Democrats. But why?

Same reason they champion the killing of 50,000,000 babies - no moral compass.

 

[Catfisher]

Why do people like AOC?

Two words:

Free Stuff.

 

[Jamsie]

Why do people like AOC?
Two words:
Free Stuff.

Or perhaps people are finally growing tired of a bunch of stagnant, policy impotent, servants to money interests old white men bereft positive solutions that doesn't comport with their maintaining the status quo and their allegiance to party in deference to America. Further, rather then to seriously address new ideas they simply attack and demonize anything and everything raised against their comfortable malaise.

 

[Catfisher]

Or perhaps people are finally growing tired of a bunch of stagnant, policy impotent, servants to money interests old white men bereft positive solutions that doesn't comport with their maintaining the status quo and their allegiance to party in deference to America. Further, rather then to seriously address new ideas they simply attack and demonize anything and everything raised against their comfortable malaise.

Her ideas are the problem. Not her skin color. For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are so focused on race being a factor in nearly every single political discussion.

A fresh idea would be smaller government. Not larger government.

It used to be, a long time ago, that federal elections didn't really matter very much because the federal government didn't do very much other than provide a national defense, a foreign policy, and a court system. The states were free to try all sorts of experiments with various policies. Which is the way it should be. If California wants to jack taxes through the roof and have universal health care, they are free to try it.

But states don't do this often on their own, because they know those policies require the ability to go into massive debt.

 

[Jamsie]

Her ideas are the problem. Not her skin color. For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are so focused on race being a factor in nearly every single political discussion.
A fresh idea would be smaller government. Not larger government.

At least she has ideas, and though they may seem "radical" at first glance perhaps with consideration there is a progressive middle ground. I don't have to fully agree to at least appreciate the need for some action in myriad areas such as health care, education, income inequality, etc., and the catering to money interests.

The status quo and lack of initiative is clearly centered on the leadership of congress and overall make-up of congress...it is torture to listen to Grassley, Leahy, Graham, etc. as they are so mired in their standstill ideologies...and the fact is they are all old white people that have perpetrated this status quo (and hypocrisy). At least be realistic as to the hierarchy of party leadership and overall make-up of congress...the status quo is to be defended. Neither party has embraced smaller government, it is simply given that rhetoric has little bearing on actual action.

Perhaps it is better understood as "Those who can, do...and those who can't become life long congress people."

 

[Catfisher]

At least she has ideas, and though they may seem "radical" at first glance perhaps with consideration there is a progressive middle ground. I don't have to fully agree to at least appreciate the need for some action in myriad areas such as health care, education, income inequality, etc., and the catering to money interests.

Income inequality is worsened by federal protectionism of large corporations. When you pass enough regulations on business so that it requires entire departments of lawyers and compliance people just to follow the law, a small business rarely has a fighting chance to get off the ground. You can NEVER guarantee an equal outcome. It's more important to try to have equal opportunity.

Her ideas are only radical in the sense that it's a bit frightening to see them proposed here in the US. Her ideas are not novel or new (except perhaps the idea of banning airplanes).

The Green New Deal plan, whoever drafted it, was an economic impossibility that would have ruinous consequences were Congress to actually take it seriously.

The status quo and lack of initiative is clearly centered on the leadership of congress and overall make-up of congress...it is torture to listen to Grassley, Leahy, Graham, etc. as they are so mired in their standstill ideologies...and the fact is they are all old white people that have perpetrated this status quo (and hypocrisy). At least be realistic as to the hierarchy of party leadership and overall make-up of congress...the status quo is to be defended. Neither party has embraced smaller government, it is simply given that rhetoric has little bearing on actual action.

Perhaps it is better understood as "Those who can, do...and those who can't become life long congress people."

There is a huge need for change in Washington. But the change we need isn't toward socialism. It's toward getting the money out of DC so that all the crooks will retire and stop taking advantage of the rest of us. And that goes just as much for Democrats as it does Republicans.

 

[Jamsie]

Income inequality is worsened by federal protectionism of large corporations. When you pass enough regulations on business so that it requires entire departments of lawyers and compliance people just to follow the law, a small business rarely has a fighting chance to get off the ground. You can NEVER guarantee an equal outcome. It's more important to try to have equal opportunity.

Income inequality is a pure function of greed for the most part. 40 years ago workers were considered "stakeholders" and so as the company succeeded so did worker compensation...at present the beneficiaries of success is with the executives and shareholders. Forbes at one time used to run an article on failed CEOs where the companies that they headed were failing under their leadership and yet they were paid 10s of millions, and of course when finally ousted for their failures received 10's of millions more..."golden parachutes". (There is no suggestion here that CEOs and company leadership should receive just compensation for their positions, something like 30 times more than the average worker 40 years ago, and hundreds of times more today)

Her ideas are only radical in the sense that it's a bit frightening to see them proposed here in the US. Her ideas are not novel or new (except perhaps the idea of banning airplanes).

The Green New Deal plan, whoever drafted it, was an economic impossibility that would have ruinous consequences were Congress to actually take it seriously.

Why is it frightening? The US has fallen behind in the areas stated, so why shouldn't there be competing ideas that move us forward not backward. Even Forbes and other right leaning sources attest to the success of solar energy, so what if some ideas seem too radical at least it should stir reasoned debate followed by some type of action...unless one is convinced that the status quo is highly successful, at least for some! To dismiss something as too radical does not address any of the situations...that do require attention.

On another thread concerning education it was posted that a weekly philosophy course had considered effect on student achievement in other disciplines, and especially on marginal students who saw significant increases. Why isn't there innovation in education, why is it still by any metric a wealth based system, and as an aside devos is hardly competent in any area of initiative.

There is a huge need for change in Washington. But the change we need isn't toward socialism. It's toward getting the money out of DC so that all the crooks will retire and stop taking advantage of the rest of us. And that goes just as much for Democrats as it does Republicans.

Well, how does one counter the oligarchy that the United Sates has become? We already are a social democracy within the framework of a capitalist system.

I agree concerning money out of politics but consider exactly who are the people in the house and senate who have thrived and continue to maintain the status quo? The reality is that nothing changes whether democrat or republican...and any considered look at the recent tax cut package clearly bears that out. The sad truth is they will need to retire because "we the people" have abdicated our responsibility... congress always has the lowest rating yet incumbents have tremendous advantage in re-election. (It your senator, congress person but mine are great!)

Ultimately, I would support a person like AOC simply for her passion and if people didn't simply try and demonize they would have serious discussions about the overall condition of this nation. That many may see that as too radical doesn't mean that there is no merit in the issues raised... Blessings.

 

[Catfisher]

Income inequality is a pure function of greed for the most part. 40 years ago workers were considered "stakeholders" and so as the company succeeded so did worker compensation...at present the beneficiaries of success is with the executives and shareholders. Forbes at one time used to run an article on failed CEOs where the companies that they headed were failing under their leadership and yet they were paid 10s of millions, and of course when finally ousted for their failures received 10's of millions more..."golden parachutes". (There is no suggestion here that CEOs and company leadership should receive just compensation for their positions, something like 30 times more than the average worker 40 years ago, and hundreds of times more today)

I ask a simple question... how does a company become so large that it can pay someone 10's of millions (really, some of those payments were over 100 million) for failing? You don't get that big without being in bed with Washington DC.

Why is it frightening? The US has fallen behind in the areas stated, so why shouldn't there be competing ideas that move us forward not backward.

Socialism isn't new, nor is it "moving forward".

Even Forbes and other right leaning sources attest to the success of solar energy, so what if some ideas seem too radical at least it should stir reasoned debate followed by some type of action...unless one is convinced that the status quo is highly successful, at least for some! To dismiss something as too radical does not address any of the situations...that do require attention.

I'm all for solar energy. It's a private good that should be provided by the free market. The technology to produce the panels has just now started to become economically viable. Just don't look for solar and wind to replace more than 20% or so of our energy consumption.

On another thread concerning education it was posted that a weekly philosophy course had considered effect on student achievement in other disciplines, and especially on marginal students who saw significant increases. Why isn't there innovation in education, why is it still by any metric a wealth based system, and as an aside devos is hardly competent in any area of initiative.

I'm all for teaching philosophy, especially the basic logic, modes of logical fallacies, etc. That would help people be more critical readers of news.

Well, how does one counter the oligarchy that the United Sates has become? We already are a social democracy within the framework of a capitalist system.

Well, first you have to get the money out of Washington DC. Campaign finance reform that is real. Then you need to restrict Washington DC to the duties outlined in the Constitution. Then there will be no need for big companies to buy protectionist regulations.

I agree concerning money out of politics but consider exactly who are the people in the house and senate who have thrived and continue to maintain the status quo? The reality is that nothing changes whether democrat or republican...and any considered look at the recent tax cut package clearly bears that out. The sad truth is they will need to retire because "we the people" have abdicated our responsibility... congress always has the lowest rating yet incumbents have tremendous advantage in re-election. (It your senator, congress person but mine are great!)

That attitude is very common. Term limits would be a good idea.

Ultimately, I would support a person like AOC simply for her passion and if people didn't simply try and demonize they would have serious discussions about the overall condition of this nation. That many may see that as too radical doesn't mean that there is no merit in the issues raised... Blessings.

I don't support people on passion when they push socialism. Ever.