What do Democrats see in Ocasio-Cortez?

[The Barbarian]

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.

Iowa now has over a third of its energy by wind. The big issue is that solar and wind aren't on-demand sources. And electricity has to be there when we need it.

For theforseeable future, we've got to use a mix of renewable and fossil sources, although fossil fuels will continue to decline as a percent of the total.

But there's a possible disrupter in the future...

Lithium-ion batteries for large-scale grid energy storage
Lithium-ion batteries for large-scale grid energy storage (ESS)

And even better...

Navigant Research Leaderboard: Non-Lithium Ion Batteries for Grid Storage
Navigant Research Leaderboard: Non-Lithium Ion Batteries for Grid Storage

You're wrong about a lot of stuff, but you're right about the market leading the technology to make renewable energy the dominant means of electrical generation. The biggest obstacle will be the traditional energy companies, which are already trying to discourage home solar applications, by lobbying for restrictive rules designed to increase costs of renewable energy.

The old energy companies will lose in the end, but they'll cost us a lot of money in the process.

 

[Jamsie]

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

Neither do I but then defining the term helps. As noted the United States is a social democracy within the framework of a capitalist system. So how does one negate a system that betrays "equal opportunity"? How does one compensate when about 80% of all legislation benefits wealth interests? We can certainly agree on money in politics and term limits but the truth is that the very people who uphold the present failing system are in command of any such determinations.

As to "socialism" it should be understood how this term is tossed around often without the reality of what is being proposed. We are a free market system, where goods and services are set by private companies and we decide if and when to purchase. In this capitalist system the means of production are owned privately. Socialism is where the means of production is owned by the government not the private individual.

I believe the term socialism, as appropriately defined, is widely and deliberately pejoratively used when in reality it has no bearing on many "progressive" proposals. The reality is that we can agree on several fronts and disagree on several overarching ones. That we continue to fall behind as a nation in many areas is a matter of record and one would think ideas to counter this direction would be welcome...even "radical" ideas can be sorted through.

 

[Catfisher]

Iowa now has over a third of its energy by wind. The big issue is that solar and wind aren't on-demand sources. And electricity has to be there when we need it.

That's awesome. Texas areas have big wind farms, too. As you say, it can be intermittent.

For theforseeable future, we've got to use a mix of renewable and fossil sources, although fossil fuels will continue to decline as a percent of the total.

Nuclear energy is big in France. I think I read they get around 80% or more of their energy from nuclear power plants.

But there's a possible disrupter in the future...

You're wrong about a lot of stuff, but you're right about the market leading the technology to make renewable energy the dominant means of electrical generation. The biggest obstacle will be the traditional energy companies, which are already trying to discourage home solar applications, by lobbying for restrictive rules designed to increase costs of renewable energy.

The old energy companies will lose in the end, but they'll cost us a lot of money in the process.

And there we have one of the reasons I despise Washington DC and distrust most government. Big companies can run to their pet Congressman and buy regulations to hurt competition. Kills the free market.

 

[Catfisher]

Neither do I but then defining the term helps. As noted the United States is a social democracy within the framework of a capitalist system. So how does one negate a system that betrays "equal opportunity"? How does one compensate when about 80% of all legislation benefits wealth interests? We can certainly agree on money in politics and term limits but the truth is that the very people who uphold the present failing system are in command of any such determinations.

You shrink the size of government. That's the only viable way. Take the power and money out of Washington and give it back to the states. Then there would be no need for Exxon or Google or Apple to contribute millions to PACs.

As to "socialism" it should be understood how this term is tossed around often without the reality of what is being proposed. We are a free market system, where goods and services are set by private companies and we decide if and when to purchase. In this capitalist system the means of production are owned privately. Socialism is where the means of production is owned by the government not the private individual.

With some exceptions (higher education finance, for example), that's correct. So why vote for someone who wants to take a private industry and have the government be the only provider?

I believe the term socialism, as appropriately defined, is widely and deliberately pejoratively used when in reality it has no bearing on many "progressive" proposals. The reality is that we can agree on several fronts and disagree on several overarching ones. That we continue to fall behind as a nation in many areas is a matter of record and one would think ideas to counter this direction would be welcome...even "radical" ideas can be sorted through.

It's pejorative because socialism usually fails miserably. There's a reason for it's bad reputation.

 

[Jamsie]

.

 

[Jamsie]

You shrink the size of government. That's the only viable way. Take the power and money out of Washington and give it back to the states. Then there would be no need for Exxon or Google or Apple to contribute millions to PACs.

I don't disagree however, as noted to do this is counter to what the leadership desires...simple as that. The status quo that runs the government is quite content with the current situation.

With some exceptions (higher education finance, for example), that's correct. So why vote for someone who wants to take a private industry and have the government be the only provider?

So we end up with education being out of reach for many and/or those who pursue then burdened with substantial debt. So maybe a movement to offer some alternative in public universities supported by the government...K-12 in many respects is inadequate. (Though in my previous field I found experience and talent far exceeded college degrees) Why couldn't health care have similar alternatives based on a means system? The point being are these and other areas not in need of serious discussion and ideas... though congress/president will push for their own self interest. (In my general area there is a drastic need in the trades - electricians, plumbers, carpentry, etc. perhaps there is a need for some focus there...)

It's pejorative because socialism usually fails miserably. There's a reason for it's bad reputation.

Who is pushing for Government owning the means of production? Why is K-12 necessary...shouldn't we prefer private owned education schools and do away with public schools? Again, one shouldn't confuse "socialism" with "social democracy"... we can go around this forever and choose to agree here and disagree there. In truth nothing will change, for "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and unless there is a radical change in leadership, a pipe dream, the status quo will be maintained. I prefer to embrace pessimism as it helps to lessen the anxiety and frustration... as I noted some of your points may be well taken but hardly issues that will be appropriately addressed. This is further why I agree that AOC makes some valid point that should be approached with sufficient care to see if there exists a position of balance...

 

[Catfisher]

I don't disagree however, as noted to do this is counter to what the leadership desires...simple as that. The status quo that runs the government is quite content with the current situation.

That's why we have to get past the sports fan approach to politics. Democrats and Republicans all are corrupt, or at least most all of them. DC is a cesspool of godless degenerates.

So we end up with education being out of reach for many and/or those who pursue burdened with substantial debt. So maybe a movement to offer some alternative in public universities supported by the government...K-12 in many respects is inadequate. (Though in my previous field I found experience and talent far exceeded college degrees) Why couldn't health care have similar alternatives based on a means system? The point being are these and other areas not in need of serious discussion and ideas... though congress/president will push for their own self interest.

Interesting that you bring up student loan debt. Since government has been tinkering with student loan debt since the 60's! The easy money that the government has made available has only served to help increase the tuition costs at a rate WELL above the annual rates of inflation. Another example of a subsidy distorting the markets. Colleges compete, and they find a way to soak up every dollar of government subsidy they can - by raising tuition.

Who is pushing for Government owning the means of production?

Well, in health care, the government wants to be the sole provider of health insurance. So that would include Bernie, AOC, and even Trump.

Why is K-12 necessary...shouldn't we prefer private owned education schools and do away with public schools? Again, one shouldn't confuse "socialism" with "social democracy"

I don't see a distinction between socialism and a "social democracy". First, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Second, socialism doesn't have to be economy-wide. You can have certain industries that have been nationalized or socialized.

... we can go around this forever and choose to agree here and disagree there. In truth nothing will change, for "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and unless there is a radical change in leadership, a pipe dream, the status quo will be maintained. I prefer to embrace pessimism as it helps to lessen the anxiety and frustration... as I noted some of your points may be well taken but hardly issues that will be appropriately addressed. This is further why I agree that AOC makes some valid point that should be approached with sufficient care to see if there exists a position of balance...

AOC wants more of the same large, corrupt government machinery. I wouldn't vote for her if you held a gun to my head.

 

[Jamsie]

That's why we have to get past the sports fan approach to politics. Democrats and Republicans all are corrupt, or at least most all of them. DC is a cesspool of godless degenerates.

A rather too broad a brush though I would agree that a pervasive system is in place that prohibits genuine change, especially for the working class. Again, "we the people" are as responsible for this situation as those swimming in the cesspool.

Interesting that you bring up student loan debt. Since government has been tinkering with student loan debt since the 60's! The easy money that the government has made available has only served to help increase the tuition costs at a rate WELL above the annual rates of inflation. Another example of a subsidy distorting the markets. Colleges compete, and they find a way to soak up every dollar of government subsidy they can - by raising tuition.

Well, opinions and information vary on this as noted here: Does More Federal Aid Raise Tuition Costs? Not For Most Students, Research Says

Well, in health care, the government wants to be the sole provider of health insurance. So that would include Bernie, AOC, and even Trump.

Well, out for profit health care is failing in not only the area of costs. I may agree with the general thought that health care needs to be drastically addressed but perhaps, no doubt, there is a solution that can balance this.

I don't see a distinction between socialism and a "social democracy". First, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Second, socialism doesn't have to be economy-wide. You can have certain industries that have been nationalized or socialized.

A social democracy simply has programs (Social) SS, Medicare, welfare, housing, etc. incorporated into the system. A republic can also be termed a representative democracy, and the common definition of socialism rightly has government own means of production...should health care or education be a means of production? The subsequent question is should healthcare and all education be private? Seems that the "Romney care" system works quite well in Mass., and perhaps the ACA could have worked with proper monitoring and adjustments. We all know that money is what drives health care and "big pharma".

AOC wants more of the same large, corrupt government machinery. I wouldn't vote for her if you held a gun to my head.

Does she, or is this simply a response to the current situation? Perhaps if a number of issues surrounding the areas in this discussion were addressed differently than maybe what is thought of as "radical" wouldn't be necessary.

Does anyone really believe that pelosi or mcconnell really want the present system to change?

 

[Catfisher]

A rather too broad a brush though I would agree that a pervasive system is in place that prohibits genuine change, especially for the working class. Again, "we the people" are as responsible for this situation as those swimming in the cesspool.

I don't think it's overly broad. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 5 honest Congressmen out of the 535 there.

Well, opinions and information vary on this as noted here: Does More Federal Aid Raise Tuition Costs? Not For Most Students, Research Says

Basic economics. If you subsidize demand, you get more demand. Increased demand increases prices. In fact, the article presents one key empirical finding that's interesting - schools not eligible for federal loan programs and aid have lower tuition prices.

Well, out for profit health care is failing in not only the area of costs. I may agree with the general thought that health care needs to be drastically addressed but perhaps, no doubt, there is a solution that can balance this.

More competition. I've always thought insurance really messed up health care. People don't have any incentive to shop for the best health care prices. Insurance pays it. It's rare to see a price list of services or tests or exams at most doctors' offices. Transparency in pricing would let people shop around. So that would help some. Health care is expensive, and that's all we really say in most conversations. But the cost of a heart bypass has come WAY down over the past few decades. Is it still expensive? Sure.

A social democracy simply has programs (Social) SS, Medicare, welfare, housing, etc. incorporated into the system. A republic can also be termed a representative democracy, and the common definition of socialism rightly has government own means of production...should health care or education be a means of production? The subsequent question is should healthcare and all education be private? Seems that the "Romney care" system works quite well in Mass., and perhaps the ACA could have worked with proper monitoring and adjustments. We all know that money is what drives health care and "big pharma".

Massachusetts ditched Romneycare. It was too expensive. It didn't work well at all.

Does she, or is this simply a response to the current situation?

Yes, actually, she does. The Green New Deal called for largest government growth ever proposed. You had the government replacing residential housing - all of them, lol.

Does anyone really believe that pelosi or mcconnell really want the present system to change?

I don't. They're both dishonest politicians IMHO.

 

[Gigimo]

It's pejorative because socialism usually fails miserably. There's a reason for it's bad reputation.

With Venezuela as the latest example, what a mess.

 

[Queller]

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

And what is the specific hate crime they were investigating. Can YOU tell me?

 

[Aldebaran]

And what is the specific hate crime they were investigating. Can YOU tell me?

I'm glad you ask (again). A careful reading of the contents within the links of post #388 will provide you with the answer (again). Have a nice day!

 

[Gigimo]

Martin Luther King would be ashamed of Black Lives Matter too. So what's your point?

Speaking of BLM: Court Says Injured Louisiana Police Officer Can Sue Black Lives Matter Organizer DeRay Mckesson

 

[Gigimo]

History is history, and they were oppressed by the democrats. Now they're exploited by the democrats.

An article from 2015: What Does Black History Teach Us About Financial Slavery Of Today?

 

[The Barbarian]

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is often described as a radical, but the data show that her views are close to the median for her generation. The Millennials and Generation Z—that is, Americans aged 18 to 38—are generations to whom little has been given, and of whom much is expected. Young Americans are burdened by student loans and credit-card debt. They face stagnant real wages and few opportunities to build a nest egg. Millennials’ early working lives were blighted by the financial crisis and the sluggish growth that followed. In later life, absent major changes in fiscal policy, they seem unlikely to enjoy the same kind of entitlements enjoyed by current retirees.

Under different circumstances, the under-39s might conceivably have been attracted to the entitlement-cutting ideas of the Republican Tea Party (especially if those ideas had been sincere). Instead, we have witnessed a shift to the political left by young voters on nearly every policy issue, economic and cultural alike.

As a liberal graduate student and a conservative professor, we rarely see eye to eye on politics. Yet we agree that the generation war is the best frame for understanding the ways that the Democratic and Republican parties are diverging. The Democrats are rapidly becoming the party of the young, specifically the Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and Gen Z (born after 1996). The Republicans are leaning ever more heavily on retirees, particularly the Silent Generation (born before 1945). In the middle are the Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), who are slowly inching leftward, and the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), who are slowly inching to the right.
The Coming Generation War

 

[kcnalp]

Is anyone concerned about the Democrat / Muslim connection?

 

[The Barbarian]

Is anyone concerned about the Democrat / Muslim connection?

No one who believes in America and what America stands for. Muslims, like Mormons, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Jehovah's Witnesses are Americans like the rest of us. If they have religious ideas that seem different to us, that makes no difference at all to a genuine American.

 

[Aldebaran]

No one who believes in America and what America stands for. Muslims, like Mormons, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Jehovah's Witnesses are Americans like the rest of us. If they have religious ideas that seem different to us, that makes no difference at all to a genuine American.

If those Kcnalp asked about are in favor of eroding or even outright tearing down what you value, then you should be concerned.

 

[The Barbarian]

If those Kcnalp asked about are in favor of eroding or even outright tearing down what you value, then you should be concerned.

The people who are in favor of eroding freedoms of Americans they don't like, are the ones who would tear down what the founders valued. And yes, any American who values his country would be concerned about that.

Muslim Americans: Immigrants and U.S. born see life differently

About 73% of American Muslims say Americans are friendly to Muslims, while about 67% say Trump is unfriendly to Muslims. (which is pretty close to the actual number of Americans who express good will to Muslims)

Despite his criticism of Islam, Jefferson supported the rights of its adherents. Evidence exists that Jefferson had been thinking privately about Muslim inclusion in his new country since 1776. A few months after penning the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia to draft legislation about religion for his native state, writing in his private notes a paraphrase of the English philosopher John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration”:


“(He) says neither Pagan nor Mahometan (Muslim) nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.”


The precedents Jefferson copied from Locke echo strongly in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which proclaims:


“(O)ur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”
Why Jefferson’s vision of American Islam matters today

No American who is worthy of living in our society favors religious discrimination.

The statute, drafted in 1777, became law in 1786 and inspired the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause and the First Amendment.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

{snip}The people who are in favor of eroding freedoms of Americans they don't like, are the ones who would tear down what the founders valued.

I don't think the founders cared much about the freedom, liberty and justice for the slaves since there was a Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution. I also don't think they cared for the treaties that were signed with the tribal nations or for the lives of all the countless Native American men, women and children who were either slaughtered in cold blood for their land or forcibly removed from their land. Let's take a moment and look at what the founding fathers thought of Native Americans.

“If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.” - Benjamin Franklin

“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.” - George Washington

“The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintain’d by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.” - James Monroe

Source: Nice Day for a Genocide: Shocking Quotes on Indians By US Leaders, Pt 1

Nice Day for a Genocide: Shocking Quotes on Indians by U.S. Leaders, Pt. 2

The real history of the United States of America includes...

(1) 188 years of Black people and other minorities being oppressed, dehumanized, subjugated, segregated, lynched, denied civil rights and denied equality to white people.

(2) 89 years of Black people being owned like property through legalized slavery and considered to be inferior to white people. From 1776 to 1865 slavery was legal in the United States.

(3) 99 years of the descendants of the freed slaves being denied equality to white people and being legally segregated from white people until the Civil Rights Movement in 1964.

(4) 100 years of Black people (and other minorities) being denied the right to vote (despite the Thirteenth Amendment) until the Jim Crow Laws were abolished by the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

(5) 148 years of Native Americans (who were not slaughtered because some white people wanted the tribal land) being denied citizenship until the American Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.

(6) 202 years of Native Americans being denied religious freedom until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978. In fact, Native American religious dances such as the Ghost Dance and the Sun Dance were both illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

(7) 214 years of Native American religious sacred sites and burial grounds could be desecrated and destroyed until the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990.

The truth of the matter is that the United States of America has ALWAYS had people who tried to deny the rights of the people they didn't like, whether it was Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, women, the disabled, the poor, the unborn, LGBT, Muslims, Atheists or anyone else who wasn't either white people and/or Christian. IOW, it's nothing new here in America.

To quote MLK, Jr.: "Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles of racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its Indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it."