Jump to content

this

banned
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

Everything posted by this

  1. Is about as real as your version of God.
  2. You mean you read that in YouTube comments? Yeah, that sounds legit. And even if legit, being bipolar or suffering from PTSD does not make you a fucking racist. But being a Christian when you're told repeatedly that its just you that has THE answer and have seen THE light, definitely makes you think less of people that don't follow some random book that has been "updated" several times. His racism is closely related to him being a Christian over PTSD or bipolar disorder.
  3. Even better, Free Ferrari with your money is my right. - AOC.
  4. Both of them are diseases. Antifa is more like a mild fever whereas Nazis are brain cancer. While both of them could and would cause problems, in no way is one like the other. You and Trump need to stop with your false equivalencies.
  5. That's not how you spell promoted.
  6. I know facts can be mean, especially when they don't agree with you.
  7. Its ok, English doesn't have to be everyone's first language.
  8. Then you understand why Trumpkins/republicans stick to the party line regardless of what he says.
  9. He was more coherent and more realistic than AOC. Go figure.
  10. Hilary. And only because I fucking loathe Trump. But why does it even matter? Why can't we just call spade a spade? Trump lies, call him a liar. AOC lies or in this case spouts shit out of her ass(if you think she isn't lying), call her the fuck out. Why do we as Americans allow our politicians to get away with blatant unrealistic/untrue statements and even worse, defend them when we know they are wrong?
  11. Americans, "Hey Trump is lying, Wapo fact checked him. Half the shit he spouts is an absolute lie" Trumpkins, "hurr durr MAGA, MAGA, MAGAAAAAA!! But Obama." Americans, "Hey AOC is lying, what she says makes no sense. A week later Wapo confirmed that she's just talking out of her ass or blatantly lying" Bernie bros, "hurr durr, but Trump lol" WTF?
  12. Its time Bernie bros get a MAGA hat on, just blue in color.
  13. And yet we have a thread on her and not on others. Is that your back pedaling?
  14. That's what you focus on? Not on the fact that a left leaning newspaper fact checks her and she fails completely? Something that (at least I) have been trying to point out since page 1? This is the problem with left or right leaning drones. Their "leaders" will spout off some nonsense or a blatant unrealistic lie and they'll not only go along with it but defend it to death.
  15. Even Wapo thinks she is either dumb(more likely) or a liar, and they back it up with actual facts: Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s media blitz VoteVets tweeted a very precise number for the cost of Trump's golf outings. But the numbers don't really add up. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post) By Glenn KesslerAugust 10Email the author Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old self-described “democratic socialist” who unexpectedly toppled a top Democratic incumbent in the primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District, is a sudden media star even though she has not been elected to Congress. (She has no real competition in the general election.) With celebrity comes scrutiny. Ocasio-Cortez has come under fire for dismissing concerns about the anticipated costs of her proposals and offering too-glib answers. For instance, in an appearance on CNN on Monday, when challenged on the costs of government-financed health care, she answered: “Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system.” Huh? Several readers have asked us to vet some of her claims and, because of summer vacation schedules, we’ve been a bit slower to follow up than our fact-checking colleagues. So here’s a quick roundup of some of her recent eyebrow-raising claims, though to be fair to Ocasio-Cortez, the average member of Congress might easily make many bloopers over the course of so many live interviews. As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios in roundups. But we will be watching Ocasio-Cortez closely as she continues her media blitz. A spokesman for her campaign did not respond to a request for comment. “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.” — interview on PBS’s “Firing Line,” July 13, 2018 This is an example of sweeping language — “everyone has two jobs” — that can get a rookie politician in trouble. She may personally know people who have two jobs, but the data is pretty clear that this statement is poppycock. First of all, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the percentage of people working two jobs has actually declined since the Great Recession — and been relatively steady at around 5 percent since 2010. The percentage bounced around a bit but it was as low as 4.7 percent in October 2017 and was 5.2 percent in the July jobs report, the most recent available. That hardly adds up to “everyone.” “After reaching a peak of 6.2 percent during 1995-96, the multiple job-holding rate began to recede,” the BLS noted in a report. “By the mid-2000s, the rate had declined to 5.2 percent and remained close to that level from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, the multiple job-holding rate decreased to 4.9 percent and has remained at 4.9 percent or 5.0 percent from 2010 to 2017.” The July data shows most of these people juggling two jobs — 58 percent — have a primary job and a part-time job. Only 6 percent have two full-time jobs, which calls into question her claim that people are working “60, 70, 80 hours a week.” Indeed, the average hours worked per week for private employees has remained steady at just under 35 hours for years. “ICE is the only criminal investigative agency, the only enforcement agency in the United States, that has a bed quota. So ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night and that number has only been increasing since 2009.” — in an interview with the Intercepted podcast, May 30 As our friends at PolitiFact documented, this is an urban legend. There is language in the 2016 appropriations bill that requires ICE to have 34,000 beds available — ICE “shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2016” — but it is not required to fill them. The main point of such language, a version of which dated to 2009, is to make sure the money is not spent on something else. In 2014, in an exchange with Republican lawmakers, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that he did not view it as a mandate to fill the beds. “That’s beds, not people,” Johnson said. In any case, the language was eliminated in the 2017 and 2018 appropriations bills. So it’s not even an issue anymore. “They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper-middle class is probably more moderate but that upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America.” — interview on “Pod Save America,” Aug. 7 Here’s some more sweeping rhetoric. In knocking the current leaders of the Democrats, stuck in “ ’90s politics,” Ocasio-Cortez said the “upper-middle class does not exist anymore.” But the data show that while the middle class overall may have shrunk a bit, the upper-middle class has actually grown. In a 2016 paperpublished by the Urban Institute, Stephen J. Rose documented that the upper-middle class has grown substantially, from 12.9 percent of the population in 1979 to 29.4 percent in 2014. His analysis showed that there was a massive shift in the center of gravity of the economy, with an increasing share of income going to the upper-middle class and rich. “In 1979, the middle class controlled a bit more than 46 percent of all incomes, and the upper-middle class and rich controlled 30 percent,” Rose wrote. “In contrast, in 2014 the rich and upper-middle class controlled 63 percent of all incomes (52 percent for the upper-middle class and 11 percent for the rich); the middle class share had shrunk to 26 percent; and the shares of the lower-middle class, poor, and near-poor had declined by half.” “In a Koch brothers-funded study — if any study’s going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers — it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.” — interview on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” Aug. 8 We recently gave this sort of claim Three Pinocchios. Some Democrats have seized on a reference in a study released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which receives some funding from the Koch Foundation, that a Medicare-for-all plan advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031. That’s because the Sanders plan would slash payments to providers by 40 percent. But the study makes clear that this is an unrealistic assumption and in fact the plan would raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Without the provider cuts, the additional federal budget cost would be nearly $40 trillion. So, no matter how you slice it, the study does not say it would be “much cheaper” than the current system. “The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.” — interview on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” Aug. 8 This appears to be an example of not understanding policy nuances. In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Affordable Care Act was deemed to be an appropriate exercise of the government’s taxing power. But Roberts was not referring to the monthly premium payments, as Ocasio-Cortez claims. Instead, Roberts was referring to the individual mandate to buy insurance — and the requirement to pay an annual penalty when filing a tax return if one did not buy health insurance. “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Ironically, the Obama administration had passed the law insisting the mandate was not a tax. (About our rating scale) Send us facts to check by filling out this form Keep tabs on Trump’s promises with our Trump Promise Tracker Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter Share The Facts Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/?utm_term=.e0567cf5cf1a
  16. Still larger than Trump inauguration crowd. But lulz. Hope these assholes get fired too.
  17. Oh I get it, I don't see you speaking up against African American slavery in this thread so you must be pro slavery. No wonder you can't see through the bullshit(and really really really bad math) in AOC's policies. Dumbass.
  18. No you suck! No you suck! No you suck! No you! You! You! You!
  19. Deal! Still cannot afford something that's worth 16 times as much every year. And thats just one of her many many unrealistic wants.
  20. Right? With AOC, I dont even know why they're trying so hard. Just post her tantrums she calls policies like universal healthcare and free college and forgive the student debt, the jokes write themselves.
  21. He did debate comrade Kshama Sawant a Seattle council member, a self described socialist. He did destroy her arguments, it was hilarious. I'm guessing he is trying to do something similar but AOC probably has access to YouTube and can even click through the videos even if she can't follow them all.
  22. What's also tiring is every argument with DSAs or non DSAs(such as you) is framed from a place of (overpaid, not in touch with the poor) CEO(of a multi national company) and workers. And how the CEO wants to "hoard" cash and not pay their workers. It might be true in extremely rare cases but overall that is just not true. Half the employees in this country work for small businesses. They are barely surviving and with unemployment rate at 3.9% they better pay employees a competitive wage or lose them fairly quickly. Let me give you an example: America is a service based economy, as such 10% of our workforce works for the restaurant industry. You must know that restaurant industry is notorious for its failures(85% of the restaurants go bankrupt within 18 months), also almost all restaurants work at and around 10% margin. Labor in those restaurants form around 30% of their cost if not more so a slight increase there in wages will not erode profits but wipe them out completely. Coming back to your myopically framed vague examples of CEO compensation and paying the workers, and how CEOs overpay themselves by cutting worker salaries which is laughable at best. There are only so many multi national companies that pay millions to their CEOs. If they are paid millions they probably also have thousands of workers, you can take everything they are paid and distribute it amongst the workers and it wouldn't be enough of a pay raise. Its just a red herring that Bernie and his ilk like to voice to flame the masses who run with it without really doing the math. Let's take a company such as Exxon Mobil thats universally hated, they paid their CEO $17,500,000 last year. Let's take every penny he made and distribute it amongst their 69,600 workers, each one gets a pay raise of $20/month! Or $250/year. Paying workers more would be nice but if you think that it needs to come from CEO compensation or shareholder returns(who have an average returns of 7% on their investment in the US), you're looking in the wrong place because its just not feasible.
×
×
  • Create New...