Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The Department of Educamation has made so much improvement in re-education that a College Degree has been required in MA to work at McDonald's.
Remember, 70% of today's College Graduates cannot pass a test to graduate the 8th Grade from 1895.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And if there are not enough jobs, then why did everybody just vote against jobs in the election? Why are Dems campaigning against jobs, campaigning to get rid of jobs? AO-C is the spokesbimbo for the party that hates jobs and works against having more jobs - such comprehension does not compute.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I have a question Signym. Who compiled this list? Was this put together by Fox or is this a list that she has cobbled together to affect change?

In the meantime, I'm going to do a little research on my own to see what's up.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Comparing Murder Rates to countries without widespread psychotropic drug usage is also faulty and disingenuous. How many El Salvadorans are on Lexipro, Xanax, Risperdal?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I think if you create a society that works to equitably benefit its members then the gun issue becomes moot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But the back-end idea that we need guns in case we want a revolution is, I believe, sadly outdated. With the government tapped into private communications, and with heavy armament and crowd-control weapons on its side, I don't believe an armed citizenry will be effective, even if - or maybe especially if - the government becomes blatantly repressive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I think if you create a society that works to equitably benefit its members then the gun issue becomes moot.

---

Talk about some fairy SJW BS! Damn, don't hurt your feels too much. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I have a question Signym. Who compiled this list? Was this put together by Fox or is this a list that she has cobbled together to affect change?

In the meantime, I'm going to do a little research on my own to see what's up.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Medicare For All
Housing As a Human Right
A Peace Economy
A Federal Jobs Guarantee
Gun Control / Assault Weapons Ban
Criminal Justice Reform, End Private Prisons
Immigration Justice / Abolish ICE
Solidarity with Puerto Rico
Mobilizing Against Climate Change
Clean Campaign Finance
Higher Education / Trade School for All
Women's Rights
Support LGBTQIA+
Support Seniors
Curb Wall Street Gambling: Restore Glass Steagall

---

Quote:

---

1. Medicare for all.
2. Housing as a human right.
3. A Federal jobs guarantee.
4. Gun control / assault weapons ban.
5. Criminal Justice Reform, end private prisons.
6. Immigration justice / abolish ICE.
7. Solidarity with Puerto Rico.
8. Mobilizing against climate change.
9. Clean campaign finance.
10. Higher education For all.
11. Women's rights.
12. Support LGBTQIA+.
13. Support seniors.
14. Curb wall Street gambling: restore glass steagal.

---

Quote:

---

But the back-end idea that we need guns in case we want a revolution is, I believe, sadly outdated.- KIKI

"Sadly?" Huh? Why would anyone in the US want a revolution? Despite it's many flaws it's one of the best countries to live in for many reasons. Do you not think so?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I have a question Signym. Who compiled this list? Was this put together by Fox or is this a list that she has cobbled together to affect change?

In the meantime, I'm going to do a little research on my own to see what's up.

SGG

---

Good question! It was aired by FOX, but it's also on her website:

Quote:

---

Medicare For All
Housing As a Human Right
A Peace Economy
A Federal Jobs Guarantee
Gun Control / Assault Weapons Ban
Criminal Justice Reform, End Private Prisons
Immigration Justice / Abolish ICE
Solidarity with Puerto Rico
Mobilizing Against Climate Change
Clean Campaign Finance
Higher Education / Trade School for All
Women's Rights
Support LGBTQIA+
Support Seniors
Curb Wall Street Gambling: Restore Glass Steagall

---

https://www.ocasio2018.com/issues/

So to be fair, compare to what FOX aired

Quote:

---

1. Medicare for all.
2. Housing as a human right.
3. A Federal jobs guarantee.
4. Gun control / assault weapons ban.
5. Criminal Justice Reform, end private prisons.
6. Immigration justice / abolish ICE.
7. Solidarity with Puerto Rico.
8. Mobilizing against climate change.
9. Clean campaign finance.
10. Higher education For all.
11. Women's rights.
12. Support LGBTQIA+.
13. Support seniors.
14. Curb wall Street gambling: restore glass steagal.

---

there are a few differences.

Ocasio-Cortez' website mentions a "peace economy" which is not in the FOX list but is important when thinking about funding. Her website also mentions higher education/trade school for all, "trade school" not in the FOX list but addresses one of my criticisms.

So FOX aired mostly an accurate list but left out one critical item (peace economy) and one minor item (trade school).

*****
But I see JSF beat me to the punch.

*****
Still, my questions about her platform still stand. For example, even if you were to take the ENTIRE Pentagon budget and turn it over to civilian use, it wouldn't pay for Medicare for all AND a jobs guarantee AND a housing guarantee AND mobilizing against climate change.




-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

But the back-end idea that we need guns in case we want a revolution is, I believe, sadly outdated.- KIKI

"Sadly?" Huh? Why would anyone in the US want a revolution? Despite it's many flaws it's one of the best countries to live in for many reasons. Do you not think so?- GSTRING

---

Once again GSTRING, you just can't seem to help being a troll and a liar.

It's possible to be "sad" that the forces of violent compulsion wielded by our government are so much stronger than the people which the government presumably represents.

Did you ever actually WATCH Firefly, GSTRING?

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

---

Quote:

---

how would citizenry ever have more power than a government with the largest military on the planet?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

how would citizenry ever have more power than a government with the largest military on the planet?- GSTRING

---

AHA! Your brain finally crawled around to the very problem I was lamenting!

In the Founding Father's version of things, the USA was to be protected by militias. We were never supposed to have a ginormous permanent standing army, much less have a ginormous permanent standing army that outclassed the next ten armies COMBINED and which had 1000 or more installations all over the world. We were supposed to avoid alliances and foreign military adventures.

So much for the Founding Fathers' version!

---

Quote:

---

BTW - Where was my lie?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Here's a hint: How long have you been beating your boyfriend?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
AHA! GSTRING, you just made no sense at all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you don't know where you lied no explanation on my part is going to help you. But if you haven't figured it out in a week or so and you STILL want to know I'll explain it for you.

Here's a hint: How long have you been beating your boyfriend?

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea what you're talking about- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

you like to use gay slurs

---

Quote:

---

So go ahead, "I'll explain it for you."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I heard today that AO-C stated that Border Enforcement and Integrity is the same as Nazi Holocaust.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I heard today that AO-C stated that Border Enforcement and Integrity is the same as Nazi Holocaust.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But yanno, it IS possible to agree with parts of somebody's plan and disagree with other parts.

Take Trump, for example. There are three things that I thought it was absolutely vital for him to do, and that those three things were so fundamental for the USA to retain its sovereignty and to make progress that I was willing to overlook the roughly dozen things that I most likely would disagree with strenuously.

As long as Trump accomplishes those three things ... well, there's life after Trump, and we can start working on some of those other things. So while I "support" Trump, I don't support him in everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I heard today that AO-C stated that Border Enforcement and Integrity is the same as Nazi Holocaust.

---

Cites? Voices in your head? You and SIG are the greatest offenders here when it comes to not providing citations for where you "heard" things.

---

Quote:

---

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has managed to, once again, show up quite how little she knows about the world. In this case, it’s concerning that migrant caravan knocking at the unopened door in Tijuana, Mexico. We do actually have international law on this subject and it says that they don’t have the right of entry to the U.S. — not even as refugees, and especially not as asylum seekers.

In the process, she has managed to show how little she grasps of history too. Her comparison of Central Americans to Jewish refugees running from Hitler forgets what was actually done to those very refugees fleeing the Holocaust.

I should note that I’m entirely in favor of young women in politics, just as I am of any other activity that 50 percent of the species might want to perform in the flower of their youth. It’s Ocasio-Cortez that I have a problem with.

She tells us that asking to be considered a refugee isn’t a crime. Well, that’s not quite wholly and entirely true these days. But to then compare this to it not having been a crime for Jewish refugees causes a certain enragement.

What did actually happen to Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria? The U.S. maintained its strict controls on the number of migrants it would accept in those years up to entry into the war in 1941. There was also no difference made between simple migrants and refugees. Thus, with strict numerical controls on who could come, many couldn’t and thereby perished.

Actually, it was worse than this. One shipload on a ship named the St. Louis actually arrived but were sent back to Europe. Those who went back to mainland Europe then largely did die in the Holocaust. The U.S. took no part in the Kindertransport that saved tens of thousands of children (one of the finest TV clips you’ll ever see is on this subject) to the shame of the administration of the time, that of the great liberal President Franklin Roosevelt. It’s thought this resulted in 20,000 extra deaths.

Not knowing all this shows Ocasio-Cortez’s knowledge of history. Of course, after all of these events, we all had a look around the world and decided that we ought to do it differently. Which we do today, as apparently Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know. Perhaps this is just my mansplaining ways, but I would hope that public pontification concerning the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees would at least be lightly informed by the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the international law which governs those rights — which is that there is no right for them to enter the U.S. at all.

Assume that they really are in fear of their lives in their home countries. Under the usual international conventions, they thus have a right (note, a right, an absolute one) to be welcomed into a safe country. This is as it should be if only on that reciprocal basis that we, or some of ours, might need that refuge at some point. There is little to no distinction made about why this right might exist. Issues of gender, sexuality, political activity, race, religion — the distinction isn’t really made. You’re in well-founded fear to your life and safety? You have that right, again right, to refuge. This is just.

However, it comes with a caveat. You must seek and accept that right in the first safe place you can reach. No, it doesn’t have to be geographically adjacent, it’s the first you can reach. If the path to safety is a flight from Phnom Penh to Seattle, then Seattle is the place of refuge and it must indeed be granted. If it’s to walk from one Central American country to another, then it’s the first safe place that is reached.

Mexico is a safe country for those fleeing specific horrors in Central America. Thus that’s where that refuge should be sought. And, as it happens, yes, seeking such asylum beyond that first safe place reached is indeed a breach of these rules. Perhaps it's not quite a crime, but under any strict application of the rules it's a sufficient reason to deny that asylum itself.

Ocasio-Cortez seems not to know the rules on the international approach to asylum and refugee status.

As a gammon (the latest British slang for elderly white males like myself, the comparison being to the puce color we turn when considering the young people of today), I of course don’t share all that many preoccupations with the progressives. But I doubt that I’m all that far out of order by hoping to insist that they know something of the world around them and how it is governed.

It’s the very insistence that they are refugees, deserving of asylum, which tells us that they’re not entitled to it in the U.S., simply because they’ve passed through other safe countries to get to that border they’re not being allowed to cross.

Why is it that the assumption that our rulers, however newly elected, should know this is in error?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
A simple search for "ocasio Cortez holocaust border" generated pages of spot on results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So sorry that algore's interwebs invention is too complicated for you to do basic tasks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here you go buddy: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-simple-thing-alexandria
-ocasio-cortez-doesnt-get-about-the-migrant-caravan

I'm sure you guys LOVE her. Been called a Nazi countless times by almost all of you since Trump was elected. Further trivializing what the Jews went through during WWII by comparing economic "refugees" looking for free handouts and storming our border while waving their own country's flag should be right up your ally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm even going to do something that I rarely ever do here, which is post the article in full. It was that good.

Quote:

---

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has managed to, once again, show up quite how little she knows about the world. In this case, it’s concerning that migrant caravan knocking at the unopened door in Tijuana, Mexico. We do actually have international law on this subject and it says that they don’t have the right of entry to the U.S. — not even as refugees, and especially not as asylum seekers.

In the process, she has managed to show how little she grasps of history too. Her comparison of Central Americans to Jewish refugees running from Hitler forgets what was actually done to those very refugees fleeing the Holocaust.

I should note that I’m entirely in favor of young women in politics, just as I am of any other activity that 50 percent of the species might want to perform in the flower of their youth. It’s Ocasio-Cortez that I have a problem with.

She tells us that asking to be considered a refugee isn’t a crime. Well, that’s not quite wholly and entirely true these days. But to then compare this to it not having been a crime for Jewish refugees causes a certain enragement.

What did actually happen to Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria? The U.S. maintained its strict controls on the number of migrants it would accept in those years up to entry into the war in 1941. There was also no difference made between simple migrants and refugees. Thus, with strict numerical controls on who could come, many couldn’t and thereby perished.

Actually, it was worse than this. One shipload on a ship named the St. Louis actually arrived but were sent back to Europe. Those who went back to mainland Europe then largely did die in the Holocaust. The U.S. took no part in the Kindertransport that saved tens of thousands of children (one of the finest TV clips you’ll ever see is on this subject) to the shame of the administration of the time, that of the great liberal President Franklin Roosevelt. It’s thought this resulted in 20,000 extra deaths.

Not knowing all this shows Ocasio-Cortez’s knowledge of history. Of course, after all of these events, we all had a look around the world and decided that we ought to do it differently. Which we do today, as apparently Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know. Perhaps this is just my mansplaining ways, but I would hope that public pontification concerning the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees would at least be lightly informed by the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the international law which governs those rights — which is that there is no right for them to enter the U.S. at all.

Assume that they really are in fear of their lives in their home countries. Under the usual international conventions, they thus have a right (note, a right, an absolute one) to be welcomed into a safe country. This is as it should be if only on that reciprocal basis that we, or some of ours, might need that refuge at some point. There is little to no distinction made about why this right might exist. Issues of gender, sexuality, political activity, race, religion — the distinction isn’t really made. You’re in well-founded fear to your life and safety? You have that right, again right, to refuge. This is just.

However, it comes with a caveat. You must seek and accept that right in the first safe place you can reach. No, it doesn’t have to be geographically adjacent, it’s the first you can reach. If the path to safety is a flight from Phnom Penh to Seattle, then Seattle is the place of refuge and it must indeed be granted. If it’s to walk from one Central American country to another, then it’s the first safe place that is reached.

Mexico is a safe country for those fleeing specific horrors in Central America. Thus that’s where that refuge should be sought. And, as it happens, yes, seeking such asylum beyond that first safe place reached is indeed a breach of these rules. Perhaps it's not quite a crime, but under any strict application of the rules it's a sufficient reason to deny that asylum itself.

Ocasio-Cortez seems not to know the rules on the international approach to asylum and refugee status.

As a gammon (the latest British slang for elderly white males like myself, the comparison being to the puce color we turn when considering the young people of today), I of course don’t share all that many preoccupations with the progressives. But I doubt that I’m all that far out of order by hoping to insist that they know something of the world around them and how it is governed.

It’s the very insistence that they are refugees, deserving of asylum, which tells us that they’re not entitled to it in the U.S., simply because they’ve passed through other safe countries to get to that border they’re not being allowed to cross.

Why is it that the assumption that our rulers, however newly elected, should know this is in error?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here you go buddy: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-simple-thing-alexandria
-ocasio-cortez-doesnt-get-about-the-migrant-caravan

I'm sure you guys LOVE her. Been called a Nazi countless times by almost all of you since Trump was elected. Further trivializing what the Jews went through during WWII by comparing economic "refugees" looking for free handouts and storming our border while waving their own country's flag should be right up your ally.

---

You're such a simpleton.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm even going to do something that I rarely ever do here, which is post the article in full. It was that good.

---

I don't see any quotes from her...? How come? You think that would be the first thing they'd do. Curious. We're just suppose to believe what this person thinks she said or meant?

Ah, I see her tweet about it and I see nothing wrong with it, maybe you can explain.

I find it too funny in a sad way, that the party of, "Jews will not replace us!" is now defending Jews in a nothing story. You guys are desperate morons.

---

No need to quote all of Jacks nonsense so I'll get right to the point. Their sickness is complete G.

T

Quote:

---

Way to take a strong stand!-GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

You and SIG are the greatest offenders here when it comes to not providing citations for where you "heard" things. - GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
A simple search for "ocasio Cortez holocaust border" generated pages of spot on results.

---

That's not the point, dill weed. You showing what link you are quoting tells us what your source is. If it's Fux it's Sh*t. It also gives us a chance to see if you quoted accurately or made sh*t up, which a number of your clown team often do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So sorry that algore's interwebs invention is too complicated for you to do basic tasks.

---

You mean like searching for "how many elephants are killed each day?"

You see the difference? One is a political opinion that you are presenting as fact, and the other is just a search for facts and data. Sources for the first are much more important (shouldn't have to explain such basic sh*t).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGHOLE:

Quote:

---

You and SIG are the greatest offenders here when it comes to not providing citations for where you "heard" things.

---

CITES?
LINKS?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGHOLE:
Now. Do you suppose you can actually DISCUSS ISSUES instead of making PERSONAL ATTACKS? Or is that beyond you?

---

Quote:

---

Most of the anti-illegal pro-Trump comments that I heard that were by LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ... who emigrated from Japan, Taiwan, Burma, China, Hungary, Mexico, Armenia etc.- SIGNY

---

Quote:

---

For example, I have heard - more than once- that the NSA has a giant database of illegally-gathered information on pretty much everyone of any importance/ interest (Remember that big data center in Utah?)

---

Quote:

---

Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So I guess none of you want to discuss the platform of a politician that you support?

Huh. Why is that?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm even going to do something that I rarely ever do here, which is post the article in full. It was that good.

Quote:

---

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has managed to, once again, show up quite how little she knows about the world. In this case, it’s concerning that migrant caravan knocking at the unopened door in Tijuana, Mexico. We do actually have international law on this subject and it says that they don’t have the right of entry to the U.S. — not even as refugees, and especially not as asylum seekers.

In the process, she has managed to show how little she grasps of history too. Her comparison of Central Americans to Jewish refugees running from Hitler forgets what was actually done to those very refugees fleeing the Holocaust.

I should note that I’m entirely in favor of young women in politics, just as I am of any other activity that 50 percent of the species might want to perform in the flower of their youth. It’s Ocasio-Cortez that I have a problem with.

She tells us that asking to be considered a refugee isn’t a crime. Well, that’s not quite wholly and entirely true these days. But to then compare this to it not having been a crime for Jewish refugees causes a certain enragement.

What did actually happen to Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria? The U.S. maintained its strict controls on the number of migrants it would accept in those years up to entry into the war in 1941. There was also no difference made between simple migrants and refugees. Thus, with strict numerical controls on who could come, many couldn’t and thereby perished.

Actually, it was worse than this. One shipload on a ship named the St. Louis actually arrived but were sent back to Europe. Those who went back to mainland Europe then largely did die in the Holocaust. The U.S. took no part in the Kindertransport that saved tens of thousands of children (one of the finest TV clips you’ll ever see is on this subject) to the shame of the administration of the time, that of the great liberal President Franklin Roosevelt. It’s thought this resulted in 20,000 extra deaths.

Not knowing all this shows Ocasio-Cortez’s knowledge of history. Of course, after all of these events, we all had a look around the world and decided that we ought to do it differently. Which we do today, as apparently Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know. Perhaps this is just my mansplaining ways, but I would hope that public pontification concerning the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees would at least be lightly informed by the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the international law which governs those rights — which is that there is no right for them to enter the U.S. at all.

Assume that they really are in fear of their lives in their home countries. Under the usual international conventions, they thus have a right (note, a right, an absolute one) to be welcomed into a safe country. This is as it should be if only on that reciprocal basis that we, or some of ours, might need that refuge at some point. There is little to no distinction made about why this right might exist. Issues of gender, sexuality, political activity, race, religion — the distinction isn’t really made. You’re in well-founded fear to your life and safety? You have that right, again right, to refuge. This is just.

However, it comes with a caveat. You must seek and accept that right in the first safe place you can reach. No, it doesn’t have to be geographically adjacent, it’s the first you can reach. If the path to safety is a flight from Phnom Penh to Seattle, then Seattle is the place of refuge and it must indeed be granted. If it’s to walk from one Central American country to another, then it’s the first safe place that is reached.

Mexico is a safe country for those fleeing specific horrors in Central America. Thus that’s where that refuge should be sought. And, as it happens, yes, seeking such asylum beyond that first safe place reached is indeed a breach of these rules. Perhaps it's not quite a crime, but under any strict application of the rules it's a sufficient reason to deny that asylum itself.

Ocasio-Cortez seems not to know the rules on the international approach to asylum and refugee status.

As a gammon (the latest British slang for elderly white males like myself, the comparison being to the puce color we turn when considering the young people of today), I of course don’t share all that many preoccupations with the progressives. But I doubt that I’m all that far out of order by hoping to insist that they know something of the world around them and how it is governed.

It’s the very insistence that they are refugees, deserving of asylum, which tells us that they’re not entitled to it in the U.S., simply because they’ve passed through other safe countries to get to that border they’re not being allowed to cross.

Why is it that the assumption that our rulers, however newly elected, should know this is in error?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I don't see any quotes from her...? How come? You think that would be the first thing they'd do. Curious. We're just suppose to believe what this person thinks she said or meant?

Ah, I see her tweet about it and I see nothing wrong with it, maybe you can explain.

I find it too funny in a sad way, that the party of, "Jews will not replace us!" is now defending Jews in a nothing story. You guys are desperate morons.

---

Quote:

---

First to begin (as a former co-worker use to say), you are an impatient person, aren't you?

---

Quote:

---

To be honest, I didn't know much about AO-C, just heard about her here and there, before I began to follow her in late summer, early fall. But I'm beginning to understand why she has made an impact and, hopefully, will continue to do so. I'm attaching a video of a recent interview, I found her to be well spoken and intelligent, and very energetic. I can see why Fox and the right are singling her out.

I know that she's a disciple of Bernie Sanders (I'm not quite convinced about him and find him a bit tedious), but I get the feeling she follows her gut more than anything. As far as her platform goes, it is an ambitious undertaking and may seem a bit naive, but I like her spirit; she has a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude. I like that. And she's not easily scared off by criticism and ridicule (Fox learned that).

---

Quote:

---

I don't know much about here myself, but I think every single one of her "planks" deserves deep, deep discussion. Not because "she" is so interesting but because the discussion would help us understand each other better. As I mentioned, there are points that I support, there are points that I provisionally support (yes, but only if ....) and points that I disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

First to begin (as a former co-worker use to say), you are an impatient person, aren't you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

---

Quote:

---

She (sic) supports transitioning to a single-payer healthcare system, calling healthcare a human right. She says that a single government insurer should ensure that every American has insurance, while reducing costs overall. On her campaign website, Ocasio-Cortez says "Almost every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. It's time the United States catch up to the rest of the world in ensuring all people have real healthcare coverage that doesn't break the bank."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

First to begin (as a former co-worker use to say), you are an impatient person, aren't you?

---

Yes I am. Sorry.

Quote:

---

To be honest, I didn't know much about AO-C, just heard about her here and there, before I began to follow her in late summer, early fall. But I'm beginning to understand why she has made an impact and, hopefully, will continue to do so. I'm attaching a video of a recent interview, I found her to be well spoken and intelligent, and very energetic. I can see why Fox and the right are singling her out.

I know that she's a disciple of Bernie Sanders (I'm not quite convinced about him and find him a bit tedious), but I get the feeling she follows her gut more than anything. As far as her platform goes, it is an ambitious undertaking and may seem a bit naive, but I like her spirit; she has a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude. I like that. And she's not easily scared off by criticism and ridicule (Fox learned that).

---

I don't know much about here myself, but I think every single one of her "planks" deserves deep, deep discussion. Not because "she" is so interesting but because the discussion would help us understand each other better. As I mentioned, there are points that I support, there are points that I provisionally support (yes, but only if ....) and points that I disagree with.





-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Using Israel as a political blunt instrument is nothing new in American politics. What is new and particularly dangerous is today’s spirit of unrestrained and bitter partisanship that sees no goals beyond narrow political gain, no tactic beyond the pale. And what’s new is an Israeli prime minister who has so closely tied himself to one American political party and to a president many see as aggressively working to widen the partisan divide.

---

Quote:

---

It is fully appropriate to challenge Democrats whose support may be waning, and to aggressively fight those who are hostile. Whenever possible, though, the goal should be to stem the ebbing tide of support through education and persuasion, not build an ever-longer enemies list. Making unqualified support for every Israeli policy the benchmark of what it means to be “pro-Israel,” and using that in the partisan wars, can only hurt a Jewish state that needs the broadest possible support in Washington.

---

Quote:

---

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning upset and indications that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has ratcheted up his own criticism of Israeli policy in Gaza, is setting the stage for another presidential run are matters of legitimate concern for pro-Israel leaders. There is little question that a major battle is shaping up for control of the party as it seeks an effective response to a GOP now fully committed to the Trump agenda.

---

Quote:

---

But Jewish leaders need to be careful to avoid buying into Republican efforts to castigate the entire Democratic Party as “anti-Israel,” and every Democratic politician who voices any criticism as symptomatic of a raging anti-Israel virus. Just as critical, they cannot afford to write off a progressive electorate that still may include a majority of American Jews.

---

Quote:

---

Doing so would put many Jews in the position of having to choose between their values on core, close-to-home issues such as civil rights and economic justice and an Israel that is increasingly remote and troubling to some.

---

Quote:

---

Strong U.S-Israel ties need the active involvement of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

---

Quote:

---

When support sags, the first goal should be to revive it, not wall off and punish those deemed not fully supportive. The success of a lobby rests not only in who it successfully fights, but who it wins over.

---

Quote:

---

That’s a message the current leadership in Jerusalem needs to take to heart, as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/jewish-democrats-contend-with-a-w
ave-of-progressives-who-criticize-israel/

She's the type of person that Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing have just come out against and said they would no longer be a part of the Woman's March movement until they either step down or denounce the antisemitism that plagues the top tiers of the movement.



This is your party now. Throwing around the word Nazi to anybody who disagrees with you out of one side of your face while actively engaging in antisemitism on the other.


Your'e a bunch of clowns.



BTW... Where's reaverfan? I haven't heard from him since CNN has come out and called Antifa a violent fringe movement.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

She (sic) supports transitioning to a single-payer healthcare system, calling healthcare a human right. She says that a single government insurer should ensure that every American has insurance, while reducing costs overall. On her campaign website, Ocasio-Cortez says "Almost every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. It's time the United States catch up to the rest of the world in ensuring all people have real healthcare coverage that doesn't break the bank." I too believe in Universal Healthcare, like the type they have in Canada (if it's good enough for Sarah Palin...). Okay that's an easy one.

---

Quote:

---

Immigration

Ocasio-Cortez supports a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who entered the United States legally and illegally (I share in her thoughts on this).

---

Quote:

---

She supports abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), calling it "a product of the Bush-era Patriot Act suite of legislation" and "an enforcement agency that takes on more of a paramilitary tone every single day" (Again, I share in her views of ICE and the current immigration policy of this administration, if you could call it that).

---

Quote:

---

She later clarified that this does not mean abolishing deportations (Again, agree). She has called immigration detention centers operated by the Department of Homeland Security "black sites", citing limited public access to those locations (Agree. We should have an elected official or Immigration Czar - no pun intended - running the Immigration Department that responds solely to Congress. There should be public access and any detention of children should have proper psychoanalysis and must meet certain mental health requirements.

---

Quote:

---

Any children held in any detention center must be allowed to see their parents on a weekly basis while immigration status is being considered by Immigration officials and judges).

---

Quote:

---

Any abuse, physical or otherwise, should be dealt with immediately, for any and all involved regardless of position or condition.

---

Quote:

---

I also want there to be a citizen process in place for all immigrants, legal or illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Of course, the illegals must pay a penalty, perhaps a 5 year delay in citizenship. Each should be provided work Visas that must be renewed every 7 years and they must pay taxes during that period, but no social security until they become citizens (as an incentive to the path to citizenship). The work visas would be picture and fingerprint ID, government issued. This would limit any counterfeits (and put a stop to Republican bullshit about fake IDs).

---

Quote:

---

Children born in the U.S. would also have to apply to Path to Citizenship
procedures, once they graduate from high school the clock starts counting down toward citizenship which would be 5 years, unless they pursue college, then it would be 2 years upon completion of their studies. If they join the armed forces - then 3 years. For each 7-year period of having a work visa, all must pay a $500 fee to continue to work in the U.S. If they go 21 years with a work visa and do not apply for citizenship; then it will extend by 5 years for legal immigrants and 7 years for illegal immigrants plus a $1000 fee...

---

Quote:

---

The work visas shall afford all immigrants, both legal and illegal, the right to be paid minimum wage, according to labor laws.

---

Quote:

---

That's my take on immigration, I'm not entirely sure what her take on Path To Citizen is, but there you have it. Well, at least some of my ideas. Let me share something with you regarding immigrants and their economic contributions; this for people who think that they just take, take, take.

The Economics of Immigration: Crash Course Econ #33

... (removed for formatting purposes)

or this:

What If Robert Reich Told You That Immigration Reform Would SAVE Our Economy?

... (removed for formatting purposes)

---

Quote:

---

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
Compared to 35% of native households

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

She (sic) supports transitioning to a single-payer healthcare system, calling healthcare a human right. She says that a single government insurer should ensure that every American has insurance, while reducing costs overall. On her campaign website, Ocasio-Cortez says "Almost every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. It's time the United States catch up to the rest of the world in ensuring all people have real healthcare coverage that doesn't break the bank." I too believe in Universal Healthcare, like the type they have in Canada (if it's good enough for Sarah Palin...). Okay that's an easy one.

---

I agree with most of that. However, it's not because I think that healthcare is a human right, but because OUR COSTS on healthcare are distorting our entire economy, similarly to our military costs. When you see one sector taking up a disproportionate share of an economy for piss-poor results, it's time to step in.

There are two possible solutions to the problem:

1) Government takeover of healthcare, displacing the cartel-like parasitic insurances, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare corporations which dominate the system, or

2) Aggressive breakup of the oligopolies which make up health care. I've never seen a breakup accomplish what it was supposed to ... instead of paying Ma Bell for phone service I now pay T-mobile AND Spectrum twenty times as much. But if someone can tell me how to break up insurances, hospital corporations and big pharma into competitive units, and make it stick, I'm all ears!

Quote:

---

Immigration

Ocasio-Cortez supports a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who entered the United States legally and illegally (I share in her thoughts on this).

---

To some extent, I do too. But this path IMHO should only be open to long-term residents (20+ years or more) otherwise you just create ANOTHER incentive to rush the border! Right?

IN ADDITION, people should not be given the "option" to apply for citizenship, but a "mandate" ... on pain of deportation. Otherwise, what happens to the people who DON'T choose citizenship? Are they allowed to stay? What status are they?? And if they obtain some sort of semi-legal status. without the pain and bother of becoming citizens, we have created just another amnesty program which is yet another incentive for people sliding past their obligations to the nation is which they've chosen to earn a living. Frankly, I don't think it's in the USA's best interest to have a large group of ambiguously-loyal people living and working in the USA.

Quote:

---

She supports abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), calling it "a product of the Bush-era Patriot Act suite of legislation" and "an enforcement agency that takes on more of a paramilitary tone every single day" (Again, I share in her views of ICE and the current immigration policy of this administration, if you could call it that).

---

Whether you call it "ICE" or "Immigration" or whatever, it is merely a reflection of the policies that it's been charged to enforce. Change the policies, and the organization changes. Getting rid of ICE is pointless.

Now, tell me which policies you disagree with.

Quote:

---

She later clarified that this does not mean abolishing deportations (Again, agree). She has called immigration detention centers operated by the Department of Homeland Security "black sites", citing limited public access to those locations (Agree. We should have an elected official or Immigration Czar - no pun intended - running the Immigration Department that responds solely to Congress. There should be public access and any detention of children should have proper psychoanalysis and must meet certain mental health requirements.

---

"And must meet certain mental health requirements"

... or what? If the children don't meet certain mental health requirements ... they'll be held and treated until they do? They'll be deported? They'll be turned back over to the adults who (presumably) have been in charge of these children's mental and emotional state up to that point? They'll be turned over to foster families in the USA?

What's the purpose of this "requirement?" What are the consequences if this "requirement" isn't met?

Quote:

---

Any children held in any detention center must be allowed to see their parents on a weekly basis while immigration status is being considered by Immigration officials and judges).

---

Quite often the children are placed in foster home far away from parent's detention facility, otherwise the local foster-care system would be overwhelmed. If you include Skype and other forms of remote contact ... sure.

Quote:

---

Any abuse, physical or otherwise, should be dealt with immediately, for any and all involved regardless of position or condition.

---

Yanno, we don't even provide these protections for our own citizens. Look at the number of children here in the USA who're abused or killed while under the supervision of county child protective services or juvenile detention. I'm not advocating child abuse, but the success of this statement is directly related to the resources behind it.
taking on the mental and emotional health of children who've arrived with lots of lots of problems ... autistic children, microcephalics, PTSD-sufferers, neglected children ... I think creates a responsibility on the USA that doesn't morally exist (with one exception)*

Quite honestly, I would take the Trump approach: Keep EVERYONE outside of the USA while their cases are being adjudicated. Most peoples' asylum requests are frivolous. Mexico has been passing immigrants thru with the idea that they will become the responsibility of the gringos up north, whether they have valid visas to be in Mexico or not. Mexico has even offered them asylum, which many have refused. OBVIOUSLY these are not mostly cases of asylum but sheer economic migrations.

Quote:

---

I also want there to be a citizen process in place for all immigrants, legal or illegal.

---

Legal only, except long-term residents.

Quote:

---

Of course, the illegals must pay a penalty, perhaps a 5 year delay in citizenship. Each should be provided work Visas that must be renewed every 7 years and they must pay taxes during that period, but no social security until they become citizens (as an incentive to the path to citizenship). The work visas would be picture and fingerprint ID, government issued. This would limit any counterfeits (and put a stop to Republican bullshit about fake IDs).

---

Any ID that you print can be faked, it just depends on how much $$$ you're willing to pay for a fake.

Quote:

---

Children born in the U.S. would also have to apply to Path to Citizenship
procedures, once they graduate from high school the clock starts counting down toward citizenship which would be 5 years, unless they pursue college, then it would be 2 years upon completion of their studies. If they join the armed forces - then 3 years. For each 7-year period of having a work visa, all must pay a $500 fee to continue to work in the U.S. If they go 21 years with a work visa and do not apply for citizenship; then it will extend by 5 years for legal immigrants and 7 years for illegal immigrants plus a $1000 fee...

---

What you're saying is ... no birthright citizenship. I agree,

But then you lay out a series of requirements for children born in the USA which seem to be HIGHER than for other illegal immigrants. I think you need to square up one set of requirements with the other.

... And also ... then what? People are allowed to skirt regularizing their status, as long as they pay a nominal fee? Frankly, IMHO the fee is way too low. It should be high enough to dis-incentivize people from taking advantage of the tens of thousands of dollars of benefits accrued to living in the USA (free schooling thru 12th grade, welfare, health, and food benefits). And again, it encourages people to live and work in the USA in some sort of ambiguous status ... not citizens, and with no allegiance to this country.

Quote:

---

The work visas shall afford all immigrants, both legal and illegal, the right to be paid minimum wage, according to labor laws.

---

Again, no. If you don't make legal immigration have benefits above and beyond illegal immigration, then why even make the distinction? All you're doing is incentivising illegal immigration. If you're going to set up a system of rewards and punishments (you get to live and work here indefinitely and be given all the benefits and rewards of living here, with no obligation other than to pay taxes and a nominal fee every year) then why would people go thru the bother of becoming "legal"?

Quote:

---

That's my take on immigration, I'm not entirely sure what her take on Path To Citizen is, but there you have it. Well, at least some of my ideas. Let me share something with you regarding immigrants and their economic contributions; this for people who think that they just take, take, take.

The Economics of Immigration: Crash Course Econ #33

... (removed for formatting purposes)

or this:

What If Robert Reich Told You That Immigration Reform Would SAVE Our Economy?

... (removed for formatting purposes)

---

IMHO Robert Reich is an idiot. I'll refer you to the study which shows that non-legal residents are on welfare twice as much as legal residents... all without paying taxes.

Quote:

---

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
Compared to 35% of native households

---

https://www.cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Pro
grams

*****

So, in sum...

I think you need to create four or five columns which delineate the rights and responsibilities of, and consequences for, broad classes of residents here in the USA, ranging from citizens to permanent residents (a category BTW that I think should be eliminated) to valid visa-holders to visa-overstays and illegals, and make sure that the rights of each group are commensurate with their responsibilities, and that the rights of citizens far outweighs the rights of non-citizens. Also, make sure that he consequences of not meeting the requirements are significant enough that you're not creating some sort of amnesty which incentivizes illegal behavior.

Also, I would add TWO MORE THINGS which I think are extremely important:

* 1) The USA needs to stop meddling in the affairs of our southern neighbors. IMHO our foreign policy has done FAR FAR more harm than good; and if there is any moral compulsion for the USA accepting migrants from the south it is the widely-held perception that the USA has impoverished our southern neighbors with our aggressive militaristic meddling, and that we need to "pay" in recompense for our actions. IMHO we need to break that link and to stop laying moral obligations on ourselves with our bad behavior.

3) English has to be the official language of the USA. There are no nations, only language groups.

---

Quote:

---

From 1846 to 1848, Mexico and the United States warred over Texas, California and what today is the American Southwest but was then part of Mexico. During this war, US. troops invaded and occupied parts of Mexico, including Veracruz and Mexico City.

... 1914 to 1917: Mexico conflict and Pancho Villa Expedition, U.S. troops entering northern portion of Mexico... and occupying Veracruz for six months

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

From 1846 to 1848, Mexico and the United States warred over Texas, California and what today is the American Southwest but was then part of Mexico. During this war, US. troops invaded and occupied parts of Mexico, including Veracruz and Mexico City.

... 1914 to 1917: Mexico conflict and Pancho Villa Expedition, U.S. troops entering northern portion of Mexico... and occupying Veracruz for six months

---

---