|
Post by Amadan on Dec 7, 2018 17:58:02 GMT -5
I didn't ask you to convince me socialism is a workable idea. I was answering your question.
You never call anyone a racist, in the same way that no one ever says anything racist.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 7, 2018 15:32:25 GMT -5
Mmmmm...maybe because it's not my job to address the objections to the impracticability of AOC's ideas because I'm not her designated spokesperson? Maybe because the objections to the supposed impracticality of her ideas by you and others don't rise much above the puerile protest of " Ugh. Socialism am bad." You asked me what my problem is with her. Yes, socialism is my main problem with her. No one has convinced me socialism is a workable idea, just as Don has failed to convince me libertarianism is a workable idea. There is plenty of evidence (in this thread) that AOC consistently gets her facts and numbers wrong. But sure, it's really because I'm a racist.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 7, 2018 14:08:06 GMT -5
Don't knock sentiment or inspiration until you've actually felt it, Amadan. Supporting someone because they inspire you is a pretty effective way to make policy. To call AOC an "economic illiterate" is such a petty and small thing to do, but this sort of meanness should be expected from neo-liberal mushy moderates as they lose their collective shit when a <gasp!> Socialist! <gasp!> appears on the scene with some different ideas and approaches than the conventional wisdom. It's funny how fearful people get when someone comes along and threatens their peace of mind by advocating what they consider crazy talk and dangerous ideas. Oh, and I'm still waiting patiently for your response to may question of what about AOC's policies turn you off. [/q] Hyperbolic terms like "losing their shit" and "fearful" do not indicate patience. What about AOC turns me off? How is she going to pay for all that? I am not anti-socialist because I hate the idea of everyone having free healthcare and housing and education. I am anti-socialist because I don't think those things are possible without bankrupting the economy, and nothing AOC has said indicates she has a realistic plan for funding your sentiments and inspirations. It's all very well to list all the nice things she'd like to do for everyone. I have yet to see you address the objections to the impracticality of her ideas, beyond "Why are you guys such haters?!"
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 7, 2018 9:17:28 GMT -5
Nope. No more than you've worried about all those economically illiterate Republicans and wildly optimistic Republicans who are transforming the U.S. into a well-funded autocratic aristocracy.
They aren't on my side and there is no chance I'd vote for them. You may be able to support AOC despite her economic illiteracy because she inspires your daughter, but sentiment won't make policy.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 6, 2018 11:22:32 GMT -5
Trump has some really smart people helping him out here, especially Pompeo. He was a very recent CIA DIRECTOR, remember? 2017-2018. I think that's a really important point. They must have really good reasons why they are treading so carefully here, and it's not because Trump wants to be buddy buddy with MBS for his own business reasons. We shouldn't be purposely naive about this just because Trump. As I said from the very beginning, it's a complicated situation and didn't happen on our soil. Turkey has a lot of stuff happening besides wanting to get to the truth for the sole purpose of the truth. And the balance of power in the ME is not something to sneeze at. I think it's really important to look at the big picture here, sad as it was for Mr. Khashoggi. Perhaps the admin wants Congress to be the bad guys, therefore the U.S. can still take a moral stand but maintain some good ties and cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Wait, I thought you already conceded that Trump rolled over on this, and now you're back to "It's complicated and I'm sure they're doing nothing because reasons"? That's exactly what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 6, 2018 9:36:55 GMT -5
That's both a limp cliche and an inaccurate descriptor. Mostly because last month "the flavor of the month" became the Congresswoman for New York's 14th District and it's not because AOC is young or a Millennial or a Woman of Color or any of the other factors that don't define her beyond reactionary Chicken Little rhetoric and tired-ass talking points. It's her refusal to sit down, shut up, play nice and defer to those tired old White men as well as the more energetic young White men. I admire AOC's "I-Take-No-Shit" attitude where she doesn't back down merely because spiteful liberals, cranky conservatives and indecisive independents are ripping her to rhetorical shreds.
Ever stop to wonder if maybe a lot of your friends have good sense about AOC and all you have is hateration? I do not hate her. I admire her "take no shit" attitude too, and I like how she's told off some of her would-be harassers on Twitter. That doesn't address the fact that she's spinning fables about what she wants to accomplish. If it's a cliche and tired-ass talking point to say she's economically illiterate and wildly optimistic about transforming the US into a well-funded socialist democracy, have you ever stopped to wonder that maybe that's because she's economically illiterate and wildly optimistic about transforming the US into a well-funded socialist democracy? I eventually got over it, and I wasn't in Congress at the time. I kind of hope she does, though I can't say I actually want all of her socialist goals to come to pass.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 5, 2018 21:18:07 GMT -5
I have a lot of friends who've gone wild for AOC. Because of the socialism and the WOC and the "young Millennial who's gonna go to Congress and tell all those old white men what's what," etc. She's the flavor of the month.
Like Prozyan said, almost all the things she has on her platform are things I'd actually like to see happen. But there is no way she can deliver, and unlike a lot of politicians who knowingly make promises they won't be able to keep, AOC doesn't even seem to realize that she's talking about, essentially, pulling money out of the air. (Okay, her version is probably more like "Pull it out of rich people." Or, ya know, just print it 'cause we can do that, economics what is it?)
Her lack of self-awareness, IMO, makes her less likely to be successful than a politician who goes in shooting from the hip with grand promises no one actually takes seriously. I mean, there is something to be said for a politician who says what she means and means what she says. It's refreshing. But what she's saying is frequently nonsense. That's not refreshing. When she gets crushed by Washington, the narrative will be that a young WOC got silenced by a bunch of old white men, but I predict after she bombs she'll have a lucrative career as a political commentator and consultant and a nice book deal, so she'll do fine. Or, maybe Brooklyn will put up with her indefinitely while she keeps promising the sun and the moon and the sky.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 4, 2018 16:59:34 GMT -5
I'll be fascinated to hear this legal justification.
Imagine you are a servicemember, right now, or thinking of joining, and you're hearing this shit from the VA about "Oopsie, I guess we just aren't a gonna pay those benefits."
This will have long-term consequences, not just to the vets who aren't getting their benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 2, 2018 21:40:30 GMT -5
It definitely stretches YOUR credulity. The phrase "from the river to the sea" does not trigger everyone's Anti-Semitic Spidey-Sense the way it does yours.
Just how far will the defenders of All Things Israel go to twist everything into an anti-Semitic conspiracy? Hate on Professor Hill for not sharing your unflagging faith in the infallibility of Israel, but in and of itself, your interpretation of his UN speech is just that and nothing more than that.
That is ridiculous. I am not particularly pro-Israel, and I do not have a habit of being "triggered" by anti-Semitism. I have no history of this and you know it.
It's simply a fact that "from the river to the sea" is a stock phrase uttered by every speechmaker in the Arab world talking about wiping out Israel for the past half century. It's practically a slogan of the PLO and Hamas. That anyone involved in Palestinian-Israeli politics could be unaware of it defies credibility. It would defy yours if you weren't invested in defending Hill.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 2, 2018 15:45:18 GMT -5
That novel-length justification just convinces me that he totally knew he was creeping on them. Basically he was putting it on the table ("restrained but genuine affection"? "wine & cheese"? Come on...) but leaving himself some plausible deniability.
Being such a dork probably turned them off more than if he'd just made a straightforward advance.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 2, 2018 14:13:14 GMT -5
It definitely stretches credibility to believe anyone would use that "from the river to the sea" phrase without knowing exactly what he was signaling.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 1, 2018 16:16:44 GMT -5
My cynical side suspects Tomi Adeyemi thought starting a slapfight with Nora Roberts would generate good publicity for her - big name author will be forced to "check her privilege," apologize, and give her some attention. But even her fans are telling her she done screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 1, 2018 9:49:22 GMT -5
So you think the CIA spokesperson is also lying in a public statement? Because the link and quote is from the CIA spokesperson, Timothy Barrett.
Do you think if the CIA was told "This is the official narrative" that they would publicly contradict the President?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 30, 2018 18:51:30 GMT -5
You do not have any more access to "the truth" than anyone else.
Let's look at what the undisputed facts are:
1. The CIA director was absent from the Senate briefing. 2. Several Senators wanted her to be there and were unhappy at her absence. 3. There are claims (from unnamed sources) that the White House directed her not to be there. 4. Those claims have been denied by the White House. 5. No direct word from the CIA or the director.
It is possible that "The White House told Haspel not to be there" is "fake news." But consider this hypothesis for a moment: the White House did tell Haspel not to be there.
What would that look like? What would people say?
For certain, the White House would not admit that Trump told her not to be there. And the National Security Advisor is going to give the official POTUS-approved story. And Haspel, if she wants to keep her job, is not going to publicly contradict her bosses.
So if she was actually told not to attend the briefing, the fact that official White House sources deny it doesn't mean much. And the fact that the sources saying she was are unnamed? Lots of political reporting comes from unnamed sources - people who would lose their jobs or worse if named.
None of this proves that the official story is false. On the other hand, it is odd that she wasn't there, when she was expected to be there, and so far there has been no counter-explanation, just the White House saying "We didn't tell her not to be there." And crickets from the CIA.
There are other plausible explanations for her absence. But you don't have nearly enough information to claim to be dispensing "the truth" here. Mindlessly repeating the White House's talking points does not settle the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 26, 2018 19:56:00 GMT -5
I heard the Saudis turned over their calendar to the US senate and sure enough, there were no murders on it. Just some innocent meetings in Riyadh and such.
Also a carpet cleaning on the schedule.
|
|