AOC as a politician- Split from: U.S. Democratic Primary

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But you could bring that up as a broader point of finding ways to fund the wall. Even though it's new taxes, so the GOP would be conflicted about it all.

 

No. I couldn't. There is no broader point to math. Either we know of a way to fund it, or we don't. We don't go with "The broader point is, we'll figure it out. THat's why we can fund it."

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's your prerogative. If math is more important than concepts for you, then that's that.

 

Math is more important to me then concepts. For good reason.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 Funny how that characterization has been missing from the discussion. She states at the outset that she's not serious, and that the later comment about the constitutional literalists — the question that they might be forced to interpret the Constitutional restrictions as applying to men. And she's talking to a photographer, not a reporter.

1

Except it wasn't a joke.

Otherwise, when the photographer brought up about the point of constitutional literalists, she would have corrected herself.

 

Unless she willingly knew that he took it the wrong way and believed her.

In which case she wasn't just wrong, she lied.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Do they get lambasted like this?

I'm lambast her all the more. Math is important, and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

 

 

It's funny. We're on our second page and not a single person has told me what the "broader concept" that AOC was talking about was.

Does anybody seem to know? Or are you guys willingly defending her without even knowing?

Additionally, the brunt of my "attack" was that I said she was wrong, and she needs to get her math right. 

Please explain to me, precisely, how that is unfair to say. 

 

She was wrong. Agreed?

She should get her math right. Agreed?

Unless you disagree with one of the two statements above, don't bother going any further into the Pentagon spending mistake that she made.

 

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

AOC is just one of 435 members of Congress. Her district is not a competitive one for Conservatives. AOC is a junior member without any meaningful influence over committees in Congress. The only reason Conservative waste time talking her is because she is popular and they (Conservatives), as opposition, just want to dull up some of her shine. AOC says nothing which is outside the normal margins of error for a political. AOC is simply popular and well like by her constituents and  Conservatives can't have that so they attack her at every chance they get. 

2

Define these conservatives. 

Media outlets? They're the ones who've mainly focused on it. And no, not just fox.

[Ten oz]

You for example. Relative to the posters you are going back and forth with in this thread do you not lean more Conservative? 

[iNow]

 

37 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's funny. We're on our second page and not a single person has told me what the "broader concept" that AOC was talking about was.

 

19 hours ago, swansont said:

the broader context was that these kinds of accounting anomalies exist with the pentagon budget, and not with other programs, where people ask "How are you going to pay for it?"

I'll add my own understanding of the broader point. We always find money for things. Every day. Money for weapons. Money for tax cuts. Money for disaster relief. Money for the presidents golf trips and secret service rentals of golf carts from clubs he owns... There's always money to be found, reallocated, borrowed, collected, etc.

By referencing the Pentagon budget, and how much money gets completely hidden and vanished there, she was pointing out that we can do anything when we make it a priority. National defense is a priority so we allocate funds even when we're deficit spending. The point is that we could equally make national health a priority or climate change a priority and allocate funds for those in the same way.

"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I'll tell YOU what you value." ~ Joe Biden

38 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't care about what the legislation is.

Either you can fund it or you can't.

Given this response, I'll put you squarely in the "pure cost" category. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, but you clearly evaded my question.

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Again. I've said repeatedly. Either we can fund it or we can't. It's that simple. 

We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed.

So, I've answered your question. Yes, we CAN fund it. The conversation then logically turns to the potential downstream consequences of doing so and whether the return on our investment is worth the cost.

41 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's a pure cost and an investment.

These are mutually exclusive. If you agree it's an investment, then it's not a pure cost (unless a negative return is later realized on that investment). 

42 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But I can't just say "Alright. It's a great investment. I'll buy 400 tons." unless I have the money.

Of course you can, especially if you're a government who can literally create currency and raise taxes.

43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If we don't have the money for it, we don't have the money for it. It doesn't matter how good of an investment it is. We still need to pay for it. 

I know this SEEMS like a common sense position, and to be clear I'm not arguing that we do this, but we really don't have to pay for it.

There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).  

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed.

1

Except it's not a sustainable system.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

These are mutually exclusive. If you agree it's an investment, then it's not a pure cost (unless a negative return is later realized on that investment). 

Every investment has a pure cost.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's extremely important not to think that.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course you can, especially if you're a government who can literally create currency and raise taxes.

I've taken three different economics courses.

You cannot simply print money uncontrollably and expect it to work. That's not how it does.

They constantly print money now, however, contrary to popular belief, it's highly regulated and controlled in order to control inflation. A little bit of constant inflation is good.

Out of control inflation is bad. SImply look at what happened to Germany during the great depression.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know this SEEMS like a common sense position, and to be clear I'm not arguing that we do this, but we really don't have to pay for it.

1

But I will. By the time I'm a grandfather, these bills will be coming due. 

And my generation and my grandkids will be the ones paying for it.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

 There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).  

 

See what I bolded? That's the problem. If we were going to pay off our debt, I'd be fine with it. 

But at the rate we're going, we won't. Republicans screwed that up after Bill Clinton left us with a budget surplus. 

It's one thing to take out a loan, or borrow some money to invest in a bridge/infrastructure, etc.

It's a totally different thing to take out money, every single year, in order to cover the costs of simply existing. 

I've read extensively into debt. And I guarantee you, debt is not something we can simply ignore and expect it to go away. 

 

Take the healthcare that AOC mentioned.

Do you think it's a one-time investment? It's not. It's something we'll pay for, every single year until it's either changed, removed, or we're all dead. How do you justify taking out a loan every single year for something you can't afford?

 

I know you didn't suggest that we didn't pay it off, but your understanding of how debt works is wrong.

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You for example. Relative to the posters you are going back and forth with in this thread do you not lean more Conservative? 

I do lean more conservative, but does that automatically make me a conservative?

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I do lean more conservative, but does that automatically make me a conservative?

Relative to those you are arguing with it does. 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Relative to those you are arguing with it does. 

So you're a conservative relative to someone.

But does that mean you get looped into the conservatives who are attacking AOC?

Which, as I pointed out before, are predominantly media outlets?

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

you're a conservative relative to someone.

Of course

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But does that mean you get looped into the conservatives who are attacking AOC?

Right, but since you are attacking AOC you do. 

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Which, as I pointed out before, are predominantly media outlets?

I didn't mention the media so I don't owe you an answer to that question. 

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, but since you are attacking AOC you do. 

The brunt of my attack was that:

A. She was wrong.

B. She should do her math correctly.

C. She's arrogant.

 

The third one should be the only debatable one in my opinion. Not the first two.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

But I will. By the time I'm a grandfather, these bills will be coming due. 

And my generation and my grandkids will be the ones paying for it.

This has been the mantra for several generations now.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 But at the rate we're going, we won't. Republicans screwed that up after Bill Clinton left us with a budget surplus. 

It's one thing to take out a loan, or borrow some money to invest in a bridge/infrastructure, etc.

It's a totally different thing to take out money, every single year, in order to cover the costs of simply existing. 

So despite earlier objections that careful accounting exists with other programs when people ask "how are you going to pay for this?" you are pointing out that there were a slew of GOP programs where apparently nobody cared how they were going to pay for it. 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I Take the healthcare that AOC mentioned.

Do you think it's a one-time investment? It's not. It's something we'll pay for, every single year until it's either changed, removed, or we're all dead. How do you justify taking out a loan every single year for something you can't afford?

AOC has proposed increasing the marginal rate to 70% for incomes over $10M. We could also reverse recent tax cuts for the rich, and close loopholes. There is no evidence that the deficit will increase as the result of healthcare proposals (It didn't under the ACA), and it's premature to insist that they will, as there is no concrete proposal out there. 

 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

No. I couldn't. There is no broader point to math. Either we know of a way to fund it, or we don't. We don't go with "The broader point is, we'll figure it out. THat's why we can fund it."

You may choose that tactic, but you can't force others to.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Math is more important to me then concepts. For good reason.

Except it wasn't a joke.

Otherwise, when the photographer brought up about the point of constitutional literalists, she would have corrected herself.

Or maybe she agrees that there might be a legitimate legal question to ponder. Or maybe she was just trying to exit the conversation. (Is holding back from responding because you don't want to pursue the topic an unfamiliar tactic to you?) There are probably other options, as well.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Unless she willingly knew that he took it the wrong way and believed her.

In which case she wasn't just wrong, she lied.

I'm lambast her all the more. Math is important, and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

And honest, good faith debate is important, too. Moving the goalposts/making straw men is not an example of that, though. I never said that math was unimportant, nor did I suggest that I was going to try and convince you otherwise (I said the opposite). No, I would rather hold you to that declaration.  

 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/politics/fact-check-pentagon-medicare-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

Yes. There is. We know where the money was. And if AOC would actually read the article/study before making claims about it, she'd know that.

"In other words, $21 trillion is the total value of adjustments made to the Pentagon’s financial records over those years that could not be traced."

I can't reconcile this statement with your claim.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 Except they don't ignore the president. They accuse him of lying. Give me an example of a time Trump simply made a mistake and wasn't accused of lying.

That would be most of them, actually, since the media has a pretty strong aversion to using that word. But there are plenty of times where Trump has obviously just made up a number, since there is no reference for it, and times where the number has changed over time. 

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I said scale of the budgets, Swansont. Two thirds of 32 Trillion in medicare over 10 years cannot be funded by any amount of change in military spending. Their total budget is not even a third of that.

Is that not obvious? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

I apologize for my sarcasm causing confusion for you.

[Raider5678]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

So despite earlier objections that careful accounting exists with other programs when people ask

When did I say this?

I said we need careful accounting. Not that we have it.

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The brunt of my attack was that:

A. She was wrong.

B. She should do her math correctly.

C. She's arrogant.

 

The third one should be the only debatable one in my opinion. Not the first two.

So we agree that you are attacking her?

She is small potatoes. A junior member who represents a district you have no affiliation with. Why are you taking the time to read up on her and launch attacks. Lots of other stuff going on which does effect you. The govt is shutdown at the moment for example. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Except it's not a sustainable system.

That's all well and good, but that's not the claim you made, nor the one I was addressing. You said it couldn't be funded. I demonstrated that we can.

Moving the goal posts to instead discussing sustainability won't change that, especially since I predicted your response and thus added this when I posted:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So, I've answered your question. Yes, we CAN fund it. The conversation then logically turns to the potential downstream consequences of doing so and whether the return on our investment is worth the cost.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

You cannot simply print money uncontrollably and expect it to work. <...>  They constantly print money now <...> Out of control inflation is bad. SImply look at what happened to Germany during the great depression.

The fact that you continue to strawman me suggests an inherent weakness in your position or a weakness in your reading comprehension.

I never said anything about uncontrollable printing of money. I never said anything about doing it constantly. I never said inflation wasn't a potential downstream consequence. So why suggest I have? I merely said funding is, in fact, possible contrary to your insistence otherwise. I said that the next logical step is to discuss whether or not it's worth it. Why do you find this logic so appalling?

Side note: Current inflation rates are barely one-quarter their century long averages. I'd say there's a bit of slack in the system at the moment and it's a bit premature to start referencing post-WWII Germany or Zimbabwe or even Venezuela. I'm glad you took an economics course. You're not the only person here who has more than a passing understanding of these concepts.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I guarantee you, debt is not something we can simply ignore and expect it to go away. 

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. Who said anything whatsoever about ignoring the debt? If you'd slow down just a little bit and read posts again before replying, maybe some of this back and forth can be reduced and we can find lots of common ground and agreement.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

ake the healthcare that AOC mentioned.

Do you think it's a one-time investment? It's not. It's something we'll pay for, every single year until it's either changed, removed, or we're all dead. How do you justify taking out a loan every single year for something you can't afford?

Have you accounted for changes in taxation like I asked, or how much much is being spent today in private healthcare coverage that would be offset? Likewise, have you accounted for the reduction in prices that would come from expanding the size of the risk pool, and the greater negotiating leverage the government would have relative to private insurers? Just curious.

You keep digging your heels further and further in. I'd like to offer you a rope to pull you out of the hole... Will you please accept it?

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

C. She's arrogant.

Perhaps I'm supposed to be glad that at least you didn't call her uppity? 

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

That's all well and good, but that's not the claim you made, nor the one I was addressing. You said it couldn't be funded. I demonstrated that we can.

 

That's ridiculous.

You say we can fund it. THen the method you tell me isn't a reliable method.

I tell you it's not a reliable method, and therefore I don't think it works as a way to fund it, and you're saying I'm moving the goal posts?

I'm not up for the mental gymnastics required to understand your semantics.

 

Saying we can always just go into debt to fund it isn't a good answer to "How are we going to pay for it?"

Imagine if I said I was going to buy a 150 million dollar house every year from now on. And my response to "how are you going to pay for it?" was me saying "I'll just go into debt for it."

Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't tell me that's not a good idea? It's not moving the goal posts to say that my funding plan is a terrible funding plan.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I never said anything about uncontrollable printing of money. I never said anything about doing it constantly

2 hours ago, iNow said:

We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed.

 

 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. Who said anything whatsoever about ignoring the debt? If you'd slow down just a little bit and read posts again before replying, maybe some of this back and forth can be reduced and we can find lots of common ground and agreement.

 

You said this:

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).  

 

And I pointed out we're not paying our debt now. Nor are we into a position to. ANd your logical response was to just take on more debt to pay for this. 

THat's essentially ignoring the debt.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Have you accounted for changes in taxation like I asked, or how much much is being spent today in private healthcare coverage that would be offset? Likewise, have you accounted for the reduction in prices that would come from expanding the size of the risk pool, and the greater negotiating leverage the government would have relative to private insurers? Just curious.

 You keep digging your heels further and further in. I'd like to offer you a rope to pull you out of the hole... Will you please accept it?

You also mentioned borrowing money from other countries. Which is what I objected to.

Will you stop strawmanning me?

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

That would be most of them, actually, since the media has a pretty strong aversion to using that word. But there are plenty of times where Trump has obviously just made up a number, since there is no reference for it, and times where the number has changed over time. 

 

Give me an example then.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can't reconcile this statement with your claim.

What the budget adjustments mean: The budget was adjusted in certain places, and we don't know why. We can't trace back to why. These things are important to know, because it allows for an efficient accounting system.

That being said. We still know where the money went.

Take for example this:

Airplane: $150

Car: $150

Then later it changes to:

Airplane: $250

Car: $50

But nobody bothered recording why we changed the budget.

That's $200 that has an untraceable adjustment. But we still know where the money went.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

And honest, good faith debate is important, too. Moving the goalposts/making straw men is not an example of that, though. I never said that math was unimportant, nor did I suggest that I was going to try and convince you otherwise (I said the opposite). No, I would rather hold you to that declaration.  

1

Great. Then why is there so much disagreement to me saying that it's important that if you're going to say you can fund it, you need to prove it?

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or maybe she agrees that there might be a legitimate legal question to ponder. Or maybe she was just trying to exit the conversation. (Is holding back from responding because you don't want to pursue the topic an unfamiliar tactic to you?) There are probably other options, as well.

 If you knowingly told something jokingly, and you know that they took you seriously, it's a terrible tactic to simply ignore it. Surely she would have realized she'd get called out on it. In which case, still a mistake. Also, still lying.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

"how are you going to pay for this?" you are pointing out that there were a slew of GOP programs where apparently nobody cared how they were going to pay for it. 

So what? I think it's just as stupid that we're spending $660 billion on the military while we have a massive deficit.

Again. I don't care what it is. We can't pay for it, we shouldn't do it. That's my position.

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm done with this discussion. It's going nowhere, and overall, it doesn't seem like we disagree.

AOC made a mistake. Nobody seems to disagree.

AOC should make sure that math works out before making claims.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

32 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Anyways, I'm done with this discussion. It's going nowhere, and overall, it doesn't seem like we disagree.

AOC made a mistake. Nobody seems to disagree.

AOC should make sure that math works out before making claims.

Gish galloping goes nowhere.

She's neither infallible nor chronic. If you hang on an instance for an overall performance standard, then you seriously need some introspect into your party. Clearly a double standard and a broadly distorted one at that.

And yet you have not shown your math.

[iNow]

I'm not going to quote snipe back and forth. I'll just post my thoughts in hopes of finding places we agree again.

When we discuss topics like healthcare, everyone always trots out the "how are we going to pay for it" canard. Some people object to this seemingly reflexive response because it never seems like we have that same response when discussing military spending, going to war, cutting taxes, etc.

There is always room for spending. There are tools we can use to account for it. The government budget is not like a household budget. Taxes can be increased. Money can be printed and borrowed. There's always a need to be vigilant and not do these things in excess, and there's always room for discussion around what the threshold should be for what IS excessive and what is NOT excessive, but to boldly proclaim it all to be impossible then drop the mic and walk away is what is truly absurd here.

I'm not arguing for pure spending or permanent spending. I'm saying we can shift money from place A to place B, and that we also need to account for future returns. After all, that's what the GOP does when arguing for tax cuts on the rich...

I have seen many people (most often conservatives) frame government spending as a pure cost, and I personally feel that's a mistake... a completely unrealistic perspective on how economies operate. Now... This is my opinion, and it's perfectly okay to hold a different one, but I frame these issues instead as investments. What is the expected return? Will this increase jobs? Will this reduce poverty? Will this enhance wellbeing? How will these affects impact revenues and growth? What are the costs of inaction (this last one is especially relevant when rebuilding after hurricanes for not proactively addressing climate change).

It's just that this constant and immediate shitting on ideas is so one-sided and so hypocritical from one topic to the next. These calls for detailed payment plans when the topic relates to healthcare or green jobs programs... these defeatist attacks that suggest forcefully that "WE JUST CAN'T DO IT!!1!!2!one!!"... yet at the same time and from the exact same people deafening silence when it comes to giving massive handouts to corporations or adding a few hundred billion for the military or lobbing a few multi-million dollar missiles into the desert overseas somewhere... Nope, not a peep! Nothing. Nada. Zilch... Crickets in an amphitheater. And don't even get me started about when actual payment plans are shared and just get swept aside in strawmen and scaremongering...

The core issue here is about what we choose to value. It's the politics that are hard, not the economics, yet it's always the economics used to short-circuit the conversation and prevent us from even talking about these ideas or creatively finding ways to achieve them.

Seriously... You're going on about how we cannot afford healthcare, yet today already we pay something like 3x what most other civilized nations do, and we have generally worse outcomes, lower quality care, and we don't even manage to cover everyone. We don't need to invent this from scratch, we just need to look at what's working elsewhere, claim it for our own, and stand up to fight for it in good faith. This is not a problem of budgeting, it's a problem of priorities.

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[rangerx]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

Nicely put.

What I like about her, is her ability to take the rhetoric that's thrown at her to speak the topic. When she does, her detractors usually run away.

And it's not just Republicans either. She has a lot of democrats shaking in their boots too. And it's about time.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 Give me an example then.

Of Trump making up a number? The count of the hamberders he got for the Clemson visit. First it was 300. Later it was over 1000.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

What the budget adjustments mean: The budget was adjusted in certain places, and we don't know why. We can't trace back to why. These things are important to know, because it allows for an efficient accounting system.

That being said. We still know where the money went.

Take for example this:

Airplane: $150

Car: $150

Then later it changes to:

Airplane: $250

Car: $50

But nobody bothered recording why we changed the budget.

That's $200 that has an untraceable adjustment. But we still know where the money went.

There is no documentation that this is actually what happened, and that those numbers are correct. So you don't actually know that there is no money missing, because you lack documentation. If you had documentation that the car expenditure was $50 (a receipt) and the initial estimate (e.g. the purchase request) then it wouldn't be an undocumented change.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Great. Then why is there so much disagreement to me saying that it's important that if you're going to say you can fund it, you need to prove it?

I don't know. That seems to be unrelated to your claim about math vs "big picture"

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 If you knowingly told something jokingly, and you know that they took you seriously, it's a terrible tactic to simply ignore it. Surely she would have realized she'd get called out on it. In which case, still a mistake. Also, still lying.

In a conversation with a photographer (i.e. not a reporter)? That she may have considered to be off the record?

 

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

The underlying point of my comments is that she is being held to a different standard. Attacking the style rather than the substance (I mean, has anyone brought up any policy in this thread?), but then, that's old hat. All of the 2016 election seemed to be about style, rather than substance. Even though policy was brought up, the focus was elsewhere.

It's almost as if people need to manufacture a reason not to like her.

[Ten oz]

@Raider5678, here is a link list all the bill AOC has co-sponsored, Link . What specific policies she supports do you have a problem with? 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no documentation that this is actually what happened, and that those numbers are correct. So you don't actually know that there is no money missing, because you lack documentation. If you had documentation that the car expenditure was $50 (a receipt) and the initial estimate (e.g. the purchase request) then it wouldn't be an undocumented change.

1

Except, we DO have the receipt. We also know how much was initially invested in that area. We also know where the money changed to.

But again. We don't know why it changed. We don't know who changed it(or who authorized it). We don't know when it was changed. We just know that it was.

And that's not enough for an audit.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

Nice straw man.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Seriously... You're going on about how we cannot afford healthcare, yet today already we pay something like 3x what most other civilized nations do, and we have generally worse outcomes, lower quality care, and we don't even manage to cover everyone. We don't need to invent this from scratch, we just need to look at what's working elsewhere, claim it for our own, and stand up to fight for it in good faith. This is not a problem of budgeting, it's a problem of priorities.

 

Again. Nice straw man. I mean, I literally said the exact opposite of this.

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not saying it's impossible to fund Medicare. I'm not saying we can.

 

Now I suspect I'll get a negative rep and I'll be accused of gish galloping around for saying that now. I mean. Dare I defend myself?

 

@iNow I'm tired of you taking what I say and twisting it around. This thread and others. Perhaps you view it as some kind of tactic to "win" or something. I could care less. I want to have a discussion, not win some debate.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In a conversation with a photographer (i.e. not a reporter)? That she may have considered to be off the record?

1

So it's alright to lie off the record?

Again. I'm under the assumption she just made a mistake. Which is what she said later. But if you want to go down the road that she's lying, go ahead. I don't care.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The underlying point of my comments is that she is being held to a different standard. Attacking the style rather than the substance (I mean, has anyone brought up any policy in this thread?), but then, that's old hat. All of the 2016 election seemed to be about style, rather than substance. Even though policy was brought up, the focus was elsewhere.

1

I don't hold her to a different standard. I hold her to the same standard I hold any other politician. And quite frankly that standard indicates to me most of them are lying crooks. In her case, she's simply bold and arrogant, and it's showing in the types of statements she makes. 

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 It's almost as if people need to manufacture a reason not to like her.

She's a politician. Do we really need to manufacture a reason not to like her? 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Of Trump making up a number? The count of the hamberders he got for the Clemson visit. First it was 300. Later it was over 1000.

2

Give me an example of Trump making a mistake, where he was not accused of lying. Because at the moment it seems you hold AOC to a different standard then Trump.

Should all politicians not be held to the standard of being factually correct and telling the truth? What's different about AOC that it's a different standard to hold her to what she says?

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

When she does, her detractors usually run away.

From the people I'm interacting with, it's usually laughter. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

@iNow I'm tired of you taking what I say and twisting it around. This thread and others. Perhaps you view it as some kind of tactic to "win" or something. I could care less. I want to have a discussion, not win some debate.

FWIW, it's comments like these that tend to lead to neg reps, not you "defending yourself." If I've misunderstood you, then do a better job of explaining yourself.

Also, your tone. There's no need to be so aggro all the time

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

If I've misunderstood you, then do a better job of explaining yourself.

And how can I make communication between us better?

I said something. Then you literally claimed I said the opposite thing.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, your tone. There's no need to be so aggro all the time

 

So what's this tone?

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

The tone has far less to do with it then position.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The tone has far less to do with it then position.

*than

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

*than

Thank you.

As this is off topic, I'll send you a PM.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Except, we DO have the receipt. We also know how much was initially invested in that area. We also know where the money changed to.

When they say the records are missing, that says to me they don't have the receipt. What does "records are missing" say to you?

 

Quote

 So it's alright to lie off the record?

So now it's a lie?

Establish that it was a lie. 

Quote

Again. I'm under the assumption she just made a mistake. Which is what she said later.

Why wasn't this part of the discussion before? I gave you the best answer I could, given the facts that were there. I gave two reasons why someone might not correct a statement in a discussion. 

Quote

But if you want to go down the road that she's lying, go ahead. I don't care.

I never said she was lying. You did. Remember what I said about good faith discussion? This ain't it.

Quote

I don't hold her to a different standard. I hold her to the same standard I hold any other politician. And quite frankly that standard indicates to me most of them are lying crooks. In her case, she's simply bold and arrogant, and it's showing in the types of statements she makes. 

Except you don't seem to be posting about other politicians who are bold and arrogant. Can you point me toward where you complained about Trump being bold and arrogant? He certainly fits the bill.

Quote

 Give me an example of Trump making a mistake, where he was not accused of lying. Because at the moment it seems you hold AOC to a different standard then Trump.

Given that you characterized AOC's statement as a lie, it would be impossible to find a Trump statement that nobody called a lie. I had clarified that the MSM did not do this, and that includes many pundits, for a long time. Lately, under the sheer weight of them, they have started to do this. 

There are plenty of headlines where it's "Trump mistakenly" says X (such as his comment about F-52 fighters, which are fictional) but is not characterized as a lie.

 Some of it's hyperbole. Some of it's just ignorance. A certain amount I can excuse. It's politics, after all. But I do hold a president to a higher standard than a representative, but that doesn't matter much, since Trump far exceeds either threshold. I wouldn't tolerate such ignorance and deceit from any member of congress.  And one further test si how often they repeat faulty information. Do they correct themselves? 

Quote

Should all politicians not be held to the standard of being factually correct and telling the truth? What's different about AOC that it's a different standard to hold her to what she says?

To have that as a goal, yes. As I stated above, it's the degree and the nature of the transgressions that matter, and whether the politician makes attempts to correct the mistakes. You said before that AOC admitted her error. Is that a behavior we see with Trump?

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 The tone has far less to do with it then position.

So discuss some positions.