:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Printable View
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Yes, I'm referring to AOC's laundry list of stupidity. It has nothing to do with Trump so trying to bring up "Trump's list" shouldn't discredit what I wrote. You weren't even trying to argue against what I said. Immediately jumped into the, "But Trump's list is bigger."!!! FYI, I didn't vote for Trump. But if you're in a room with both and think AOC is the more intelligent individual, I would question your intellect. That's all I meant by that quote you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
Refer to my post above in response to ManRam.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
The guy above has been in the spotlight for his entire life. AOC has only been, wait for it, relevant for less than a year. The amount of garbage and inaccurate statements she has made is ridiculous for someone who claims to be "fighting" corruption. As for your evidence that most Americans would support it, of course. Most Americans don't actually know the true cost of it and if they're not the ones "paying" for it, they'll assume it's just another benefit they can have without paying for it. Also, I've read those same reports. They're mostly assuming the corruption stops and from what I've read, Bernie has tried to get it working in Vermont and it didn't work.
https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-...e-for-All-bill
Truthfully, no one knows how much it will really cost but it's going to be A LOT and to say, "it'll actually cost less" when you're dealing with 300 million + Americans just because an article told you so, it's not exactly solid evidence to have legislation passed. I would like to see you debunk the rest.. pretty difficult to do considering it came out of her mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
Yet, you haven't debunked any of what I said. I'm waiting. If you took the time to argue about me saying something about Trump being more intelligent than AOC, spend some time arguing just a few of what I listed that AOC herself stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
I see you don't understand the tax code. Marginal tax rates don't mean anything if the tax codes allow you to manipulate the amount of "income" you actually earned. It's like if the marginal tax rate was 90% but a deduction allowed me to deduct 100% of my income if I worked at NYC for one day out of the year. That would effectively mean I pay 0% taxes if I just worked in NYC for one day out of the year. So the lesson here is quite simple: Marginal tax rates =/= effective tax rate. Her continuously quoting that marginal tax rate while not knowing that it was heavily manipulated is misleading. Tax code = ALL the deductions/exclusions/exemptions, etc., Marginal tax rate = 90%. Big difference there. It's why accountants exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
Just because "most are up for it", doesn't mean it is ideal. People have their selfish desires. If they could tax the wealthy 100% of their money, I am willing to bet an overwhelming population would agree to it because it would mean they get more benefits. This "majority trumps minority" on policy is a laughable suggestion or evidence that it is ideal.
Look, I really dislike AOC because I live in the district she won in. She's no different than Trump in a sense that she's ignorant and continues making these statements with very little repercussion. Her social media gains steam the more she writes ignorant statements such as Trump. There is very little difference between Trump and AOC other than the fact I legitimately think AOC isn't a bright individual outside of politics. In case you didn't know, she is a part of some Democratic Socialist membership group. Literally, all her opinions are printed on a brochure and stated on their website. She's like a teenage girl just reading off the pamphlet and makes silly statements.
Lol so you don't deny you brought him up and even did it again you just like to be hypocritical and not let others do the same? Got it. Who cares how long they have been in the spotlight etc. there is tons of garbage on Trump on a regular basis it isn't like only a few times over the years its all the time. Again you keep bringing up comparisons about them but then say it has nothing to do with Trump, how do you not see this?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Alright so to the points. I agree many Americans probably don't know much because they just believe what they believe and even when evidence against it is provided they just post something like a Quora post instead of actually looking at research done into it. If you read the links posted, specifically the last one you would get an actual study instead of just a persons opinion with little data on an online community haha. https://www.citizen.org/sites/defaul...-_february.pdf
This copy and pasted from the 2nd article quoting the study it was sourcing for Sanders plan.
A new report from the libertarian Mercatus Center found that Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the federal government an additional $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
But the Mercatus report also found that the national health expenditure — the total amount spent on healthcare in the US by the federal government, states, businesses, and individuals — would come in below current projections under Sanders' plan.
So while the price tag for the federal government would increase, the total cost of healthcare would go down, and more than 30 million uninsured Americans would get access to healthcare, according to Mercatus' model.
Most people want it, millions would gain coverage who don't have it, a recent actual analysis found it would actually save money despite the rhetoric, an earlier analysis found Sanders plan would also do the same thing in the end but this guy on Quora has some issues I tell ya.
I am not saying for sure it ends up cheaper I am just pointing out what actual studies/analysis has found. Those articles put some context in for people and had other links too ya sure that helps my case as well here. I am just saying your points don't seem to have anything to back them up and there is plenty out there against your simple opinions. I am all for bashing her crazy ideas but if you want to bash normal ideas as crazy then you should probably have something more than your opinion/opinion of some people on a different online community. It hurts the entire post when you don't seem to back anything up and some things seem so off base themselves.
Wait you are just saying there are loopholes to manipulate type thing? Ok I agree with you on what you are saying that doesn't change anything though. I was asking for the context and pointing out if they were saying it has been that in the past they would be correct. That is a true statement still you just went off on random stuff now unrelated to my questions or adding context just assuming I didn't know something because it wasn't stated clearly as a point (like most of that post).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
This is what I mean you don't really make much sense in your points. You are making up guesses about what you think other people might want while I actually provided evidence of it. How can you keep putting your opinion over everything else then whine about her doing it?
I agree just because everyone is up for it doesn't necessarily mean it needs to happen but you still don't really make much sense overall except you seem to really dislike her that makes a lot of sense based on the posts. Why are we at Trump again?
Look I am just pointing out in a general sense if you want to criticize her do it rationally and make real points because your posts have looked kinda ridiculous so far just ranting at her with opinion/emotion and leaving reality a bit (just like you are mad she does). I don't love her and think some of the criticisms you had probably are legitimate but it is hard to weed out which ones you have a point on because some seem off base immediately or I just don't understand the context behind your issue at all you just kinda rant.
https://www.peri.umass.edu/reviewer-...dicare-for-all
here is another study/analysis of single payer
It's funny you just say I'm ranting but you haven't debunked any of what I've said. You just seem to type a whole bunch of words to avoid trying to confront any of it. I'm not putting my opinion over it. Which opinion am I putting? These are estimates made by studies. Estimates that are even sourced in articles you've provided. "I don't make much sense." Buddy, she's the one who said all these things. Now confront them or excuse yourself because there is no point in this. So far all you did was tackle on the single payer (which is impossible to calculate but it first depends on if you can stop the corruption/lobbyists) but won't explain how she thinks there is 500 million people in America or that she said we should replace over 250+ million gas vehicles in America with electric vehicles by 2030. Is that my opinion as well? "I don't make sense." You're all over the place. And you don't even know how the tax code works but I'm supposed to reply back to you about me not making any sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
Post #1639. Where did I place my opinion on any of these issues that isn't a factual argument? I'm waiting. You keep saying it's my opinion. NO. These are STATEMENTS made by HER. I am simply expanding on how stupid it is. Not my opinion. My opinion is she's dumb because she makes statements like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
Also, I have no idea if you're confusing single payer with universal health care. They aren't the same thing.
I shared 3 different studies now that have debunked what you said lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
I don't know where that 500 million comment is coming from or anything you didn't provide any detail etc. I don't agree with her if she literally said that.
I honestly have no idea what that last part is about you once again are just rambling. I already stated I was asking a question. The issue is when you don't have coherent points it is tough to answer anything about them.
I am talking medicare for all, that last study I shared was a look at the single payer approach to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
I just shared 3 different studies disputing you lol. Your opinion on 10 apparently matters more than everything else provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
You don't source anything to show the context about what she is saying and then go only off opinion when complaining about it nothing to source and show how she was wrong. When questioned you just attack instead of answer what I asked then pretended you made a point and I don't understand despite already saying that simply isn't what I was asking about. You even admitted you are just angry about her haha. It is very clear you didn't have to tell us and it shows in how illogical you have been.
11) When asked how she will pay for these policies, she said, "No one asks how we will pay for the space force." Studies show that the space force that Trump planned to fund would only cost $3 billion in a five year span. She's comparing $3 trillion to $600 million. Totally appropriate.
Like this is the one right after and you are actually doing exactly that. Complaining about the cost of something that the analysis given says would save money while all for adding 600 million without giving any reasoning. It just makes your whole post look silly when nothing is sourced, some can be shown wrong with real evidence, then the next point laughably is her calling out people with your exact rhetoric (because it looks dumb when people argue about the cost of something without having any idea or doing no research). That goes for you just as much as it does her.
I already said I bet a lot of the criticism is legitimate it is just tough to tell because of how lacking that initial post was and how you can't even answer questions on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrzubnyy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks the world will end in 12 years. :shrug:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...e-dont-address
Quote:
Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed
also relevant, this from 1989..Quote:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Quote:
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
It's infinitely worse to outright deny climate change than to believe in the worst predictions.
Not even comparable. One side is completely denying a bevy of evidence, and frankly common sense. The other is not.
Screw off.
I appreciate your efforts to counter the litany of Ocasio-Cortez’s apparent horrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
I just do not have the energy.