MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat)

posted 7 years ago by Rorikon (18391)
27 replies | jump to latest

Defeats incumbent top ranking democrat Joseph Crowley who was suppose to replace Nancy Pelosi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqn--C-MuJ4

Who she is:
-28 year old Latina (Portuguese)
-Running her first campaign
-Member of the Democratic Socialists of America

What she wants:
-Free healthcare
-Free college education
-Federal jobs guarantee (*)
-Abolish ICE

*Under a federal jobs guarantee program, the U.S. government would guarantee a job with a living wage and good benefits to any resident who wants or needs one. It would guarantee wages of at least $15 an hour, indexed to inflation by the program's fourth year, offer retirement and health benefits on par with other federal employees, child care assistance and 12 weeks of paid family leave. The jobs listed include everything from park maintenance to construction work and home care.

Sounds like the far-left opposite of Trump. Even more left than Bernie I think. Trump wants you to pay for things, Alexandria wants to give you free shit. Hmm hmm... where to pay for all those free stuff I wonder... tax the rich more again?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

“Tax the rich more again?”

I guess you’re not familiar with T-rumps “ tax reform” Rethuglikkkans pushed through late last year? Rich aren’t exactly being “ taxed too much”. Or, as he told his very wealthy CEO friends at dinner on New Years Eve,

“ I just saved you a lotta money.”

[–] Rorikon (18391) 7 years ago

Well that's the thing. Republicans cut taxes to the rich when they're in office while Democrats tax the rich when they're in office. I'm just saying if she ever wins, everything that Trump has done will be the opposite and can undone as well? Anyway, the next Democrat president can undo Trump's reform, no? I just know Trump has been undoing most of what Obama has done. Unless certain policies/laws/reforms/etc. can't be undone.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

Health care and education, we practically pay our taxes directly to these industries. They already have all the money and can't get any more.

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

You have a nasty habit of taking republican talking points as fact when they are easily proven false. Obama made the Bush-era tax cuts permanent. They were set to expire in 2010, which means we would've gone back to the Clinton-era tax cuts automatically just by Obama doing nothing. On top of that, when Obama extended those tax cuts, he actually lowered them for the wealthy by giving an extra cut to the estate tax.

Republicans undo what democrats do and it gets us in trouble every time. Clinton raised taxes from the Reagan/Bush era and it worked to remove the deficit that Reaganomics left us. Then by 2000 we had an estimated surplus of $5 trillion. W Bush used that surplus to pay for his tax cuts for the rich, but then on top of it he started two wars, and on top of that the housing market collapsed which caused a recession. Corporate Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes during a recession and now we're permanently fucked until the non-rich finally kick out all the cronies.

People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the future of this country because they are the ones with the balls to address the fact that crony capitalism is destroying us. I'm sure you don't agree with Socialism, and I'm sure you're one of those idiots who will point to Venezuela, but the only way to get back to democratic capitalism is to move away from crony capitalism by injecting democratic socialism. When the pendulum swings too far to one side, a counterbalance is in order. That counterbalance is the reason why Corporate Crowley got thrown out on his ass.

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to pay for free healthcare, free education, guaranteed Federal jobs, and everything else this moonbat is promising. You will have to raise taxes significantly on everyone else. It's not even disputable.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

"It's not even disputable."

Yeah, it is.
Governor Cuomo has expanded Obamacare in NY state and introduced FREE tuition for the middle class in public colleges and universities WITHOUT raising taxes. Period.

There are huge tax incentives for companies to come to New York state such as tech start-ups and studios which help create jobs.

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

I looked up Cuomo's program (called the Excelsior Scholarship) and it is a joke. It only covers tuition costs remaining AFTER financial aid has been applied, and it has a lot of other restrictions which will make it useless to most students. Free college is a pipe dream.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

You confused the rules. It covers whatever costs remain if a student already has grants like TAP and PELL. TAP, PELL and Cuomo's program are all free money which are not repaid. Free tuition from three sources.

The big difference is in order to qualify for TAP and PELL, you have to have a very low family income. Cuomo's program is the only grant for the middle-class with a $110,000 gross maximum income so many middle-income families may only qualify for Cuomo's grant. 75% of households in NY are eligible.

It's not a pipe dream.

BTW, public colleges and universities were free in New York many years ago.

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Raising taxes on the wealthy probably won't pay for it all, but it'll take a big chunk out of it. The rest could easily come from our bloated military budget.

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

You're right. Cutting a fraction of the $500 billion defense budget will easily pay for a $1.4 trillion "Medicare for all" program as well as free college. LOLOLOLOL

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

$1.4 trillion is the estimate for universal healthcare more commonly referred to as single-payer. Medicare for all is simply medicare for all. As you should know, medicare does not offer unlimited coverage to everyone 65 or over. Medicare for all would work the same way, but without the 65-year age requirement.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Her message resonates and she's very relateable. It's about people who work hard and are losing ground and struggling. Politicians (including her opponent) who are supposed to represent them instead are taking money from corporate interests which eventually direct policies that hurt the working class. She has a working class background and struggled to support her family when her father died. She takes no PAC money so there's no conflict in representing the average Joe.

If you want to know why she won, then watch her political commercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3QXIVR0bs

BTW, she's not Portuguese. She's Puerto Rican.

"Alexandria wants to give you free shit."
The rich were given something free - a huge tax break.

[–] Gd5150 (11966) 7 years ago

She’s an ignorant leftwing baffoon. No surprise she won in a place like NY. In the history of the world socialism has never worked. It can’t work, human nature won’t allow it. People won’t work for free and inevitably that’s what has to happen.

One thing she does have that the demokkkrat party doesnt? A platform that consists of more than TrumpOrange. Good for her. Hope she does well. She’ll lead to more quality republican pro business pro American voter office holders.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

"In the history of the world socialism has never worked."

That's not true. Democratic socialist countries like Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and the Netherlands are actually doing much better then the United States.

All of them have:
National Healthcare (but who doesn't except the United States re: western countries)
Free universities in Iceland, Sweden, Germany, Norway

All of these countries are considered full democracies. The United States is considered a flawed democracy and sinking by the minute.

"She’ll lead to more quality republican pro business pro American voter office holders. "
Not in her district.

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

You're comparing a massive behemoth with 300 million people to a handful of tiny, homogeneous nations in northern Europe. That sounds reasonable.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Then to prove you have any idea what you're even talking about, explain why it can't scale.

Be specific.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

First of all, I just proved that the comment about socialism not ever working is incorrect.

You address a different issue re: population.

Population is irrelevant. BTW, they're not that homogeneous. It has to do with competent governance and the intelligence of the people.

Too many dummy working-class Americans would rather support multi-millionaires and billionaires instead of their own economic class. Too many policies are created to help the rich at the expense of the middle and working-class. Of course, corporations shouldn't be allowed to give millions to a politician. Who do you think that politician is going to help? You or his corporate sponsor? That's legal in the U.S. and illegal in those other countries. That has zip to do with population. They're not stupid to allow it.

The U.S. gave a huge tax break to super rich people and corporations that already said they wouldn't use it to hire people, but to do stock buybacks which is exactly what they ended up doing. That makes the U.S. government corrupt and Americans stupid for allowing it especially after complaining about large corporations and Wall Street.

You don't have government doing that in those other countries because once again the people wouldn't be stupid enough to allow it.

China has universal health insurance and they have 1.3 billion! Americans would prefer not to have insurance so that they can lose their homes if they get cancer or have a serious accident. BTW, Trump is allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people who have preexisting health conditions again. And Americans are allowing it. Just more dumbness.

The U.S. wastes trillions in starting stupid wars in order to make a few rich government pals rich which is what Eisenhower had warned against years ago (military industrial complex). That money could easily have been used to pay for free public colleges with plenty left over. Canada has fewer resources but has started free colleges for middle-class families.

[–] Satan2016 (26201) 7 years ago

More lefty lies. "Democratic socialist countries like Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and the Netherlands "

None are socialist. Gov might run trains, but not banks, industry, etc. Some even privatized the Post Office!

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

You're confusing communism with democratic socialism. The countries I named are democratic socialist. They have a much higher standard of living, happier and have stronger democracies because they are dedicated to equality and democracy. Having health care isn't a privilege, but a right.

An interesting article comparing the U.S. with Norway:
https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

Those are all capitalist nations with strong market economies. They may have a social welfare system, but so does the US. We simply can't afford a system as expansive as theirs.

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Yes we can. They have much less money and resources than the U.S.

The problem is that Americans believe it's acceptable for people to be homeless because "it's their fault" or to lose their life savings if they become disabled and enter a nursing home. Many people have been brain-washed against social democracy even though it would benefit most people who are struggling now.

Like the saying goes, people get the type of government they deserve. We'll keep our corrupt pro-rich government as long as people put up with it.

[–] Satan2016 (26201) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

Don't blame your illiteracy on me.

I wrote democratic socialism. Not Socialist. Those are two entirely different things.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

You're acting like she's running for president when she's not. She'll just be a first year House Dem from a safe blue yet politically visible NY district.

Reminder: There were also a ton of far right tea party extremists that successfully primaried GOP moderates in 2010 prior to that wave election cycle too. It happens when the incumbents aren't seen as doing their jobs by their constituents.

[–] Satan2016 (26201) 7 years ago

New York's 14th congressional district: Bronx/Queens. Voted 80% for Obummer/Clintoon. Sound like Rich Commies.

Makes Comrade Sanders look moderate. I'm sure her first two years will provide plenty of material for Trump campaign ads in 2020!

[–] Keelai (36157) 7 years ago

That district is mainly working-class and middle-class. People who are struggling to make ends meet like the rest of the country. Most people in NYC are aware that Trump is a white supremacist. Remember, he's a New Yorker and they have known him a lot longer than the rest of the country.

At least they were smart enough to vote for someone who will work for them instead of for himself like Trump. As if he really cares about working people. LOL.

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

It was funny as hell watching coverage of Trump praising her victory. It's amazing just how vain he is that he'd cheer a far-lefty because her opponent said negative things about him on twitter. That's all Trump cares about. And of course he had to bring Crowley's appearance into the conversation. Not only does Trump have no ideology, but he's an idiot when it comes to ideologies. All he knows is that Ocasio-Cortez is better looking, which in his mind makes her better. It would be pathetic if it wasn't so damn hilarious.