Campaign funding struggles for AOC..

[Aquapod770]

(08-16-2019, 09:04 AM)jj22 Wrote: Her real ones? Or the long proven fake news ones that Trump promotes and you guys still get conned into believing (and repeating)? As already posted with proof many times in this forum, everything Trump has said about them is a lie (go figure).

Her real ones. I actually read the GND. Twice. Once before the "edits" and once after. It was the single worst piece of legislation I've ever read (before), but the edits were basically polishing a turd. 

I try to read most of the "popular" bills. As with the media you really can't trust what either side says and I've found it's just better to read it for yourself. 

Here's a link to the edited version if you want to read it. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

Bonus: Her plan with Bernie to cap interest rates on credit cards is a great way to hurt the poor. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2019, 08:18 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: It's over for weeks. It was honestly not the best of us. French people are always complaining and tend to be very generous with other people's money but they got 100€ / month for those who earn not enough while working, it"s not that bad. We usually just have one job and we don't work much ( 35 hours a week with 8 weeks of paid holidays ). There are many worse places in the world. 

Nobody cares about the second thing. It's his private life. At least, he's still married to the same woman.

LOL

Conservatives just threw up in their mouth a little bit at the thought of a 35 hour work week and 8 weeks of paid vacation. Throw in health care and they will have a stroke.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-16-2019, 01:13 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if we've got a lot of room to throw stones here. At least he was 15, instead of our cic who allegedly groped underage girls, was responsible for putting people in charge to protect a child sex trafficker buddy of his that ended up dead and has admitted to sexually assaulting women 

True, but my point wasn't that we were doing well. It was that they weren't either.  

(08-16-2019, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Conservatives" (especially Trump supporters) that bring up the "morality" of others sexual encounters always give me the giggles.

Well, thank God I am not a Trump supporter then, wouldn't want to make you giggle. 


....You do know that BOTH Trump and a child predator as French First Lady can be bad, right? It's not an either-or proposition. 

[GMDino]

(08-16-2019, 11:29 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: True, but my point wasn't that we were doing well. It was that they weren't either.  


Well, thank God I am not a Trump supporter then, wouldn't want to make you giggle. 


....You do know that BOTH Trump and a child predator as French First Lady can be bad, right? It's not an either-or proposition. 

*I* know it...I'm not sure the Trump supporters know it.



Let me edit to add: Different cultures and different ages aside, was was stated they are still together. Trump is not a good symbol of morality to comapre anyone else's relationship with.

[BmorePat87]

84% of her donations are under $200 (which she claims is the most of all members), so they're not itemized, so this is really only looking at her large donations and ignoring 84% of her fundraising. The premise that her in district fundraising is "virtually nonexistent" is false.
She has also raised nearly $2m so far this cycle, which dwarfs the House reelection campaign average of $500k and is more than multiple Presidential candidates.

Every time another challenger is announced in her 80% D district, she throws up a new facebook ad and gets tens of thousands from people across the country. She's flushed with cash. She has no need to host big donor fundraising events to stay alive like other members do.

[GMDino]

(08-19-2019, 03:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 84% of her donations are under $200 (which she claims is the most of all members), so they're not itemized, so this is really only looking at her large donations and ignoring 84% of her fundraising. The premise that her in district fundraising is "virtually nonexistent" is false.

She has also raised nearly $2m so far this cycle, which dwarfs the House reelection campaign average of $500k and is more than multiple Presidential candidates.

Every time another challenger is announced in her 80% D district, she throws up a new facebook ad and gets tens of thousands from people across  the country. She's flushed with cash.

Well sure if you want to ignore all the people that DON'T like her! 

[hollodero]

(08-16-2019, 10:13 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Her real ones. I actually read the GND. Twice. Once before the "edits" and once after. It was the single worst piece of legislation I've ever read (before), but the edits were basically polishing a turd. 

From what i heard, that was never meant to be read as finished legislation propositions, but rather to spur a conversation. That's what she said at least. If that is a good way to go about it is another thing, but maybe it's not fair to evaluate the Green New deal like it was a done proposal.

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 03:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: From what i heard, that was never meant to be read as finished legislation propositions, but rather to spur a conversation. That's what she said at least. If that is a good way to go about it is another thing, but maybe it's not fair to evaluate the Green New deal like it was a done proposal.

Correct. The point was to throw out possible policies, then get feedback.

This is the case with ALL bills. Their framers can only guess at what obstacles and costs there might be beforehand. The point of getting something on paper is that possible stakeholders can see what you have in mind and provide feedback.

The difference here is that this one calls from more radical change and so provokes more public discussion. 

How one comes down on the issue of climate change is crucial to how one views the bill. If you think anthropogenic global warming is a croc, then the whole thing looks crazy.  If you buy forecasts of a "tipping point" in the near future, then you want legislators to get started on rolling back carbon emissions and the like. NOW. Crazy is doing nothing. This is a start.

[Dill]

(08-15-2019, 02:31 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: This is surprsing way to make politics. If you get elected with money's donators or lobbies then the donators and the lobbies will govern.

Not a surprise if you defend poor people you'll have less money than if you defend billionnaires.

You can't at the end be surprised if every law which is passing is made for rich people.

The swamp starts from here.

That is maybe the central problem in our democracy right now.

Politicians are beholden to donors first, voters second.

I don't blame the politicians though. It's the voters who enable them.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-19-2019, 06:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Politicians are beholden to donors first, voters second.

That wouldn't matter if people weren't so easily duped by commercials and op-eds.  

[Aquapod770]

(08-19-2019, 03:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: From what i heard, that was never meant to be read as finished legislation propositions, but rather to spur a conversation. That's what she said at least. If that is a good way to go about it is another thing, but maybe it's not fair to evaluate the Green New deal like it was a done proposal.

She back tracked because of the backlash. 

Spur what conversation? A conversation about climate change? Sure...I guess...but those conversations have already been going on. Plus is one of the worst proposal ever really the best way to spur conversation (and potentially win people to your side)? It's a terrible way to go about it. 

[GMDino]

(08-20-2019, 09:32 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: She back tracked because of the backlash. 

Spur what conversation? A conversation about climate change? Sure...I guess...but those conversations have already been going on. Plus is one of the worst proposal ever really the best way to spur conversation (and potentially win people to your side)? It's a terrible way to go about it. 

Perhaps a conversation on how we can confront climate change without people denying it simply because they are clutching to their purses?

[Aquapod770]

(08-19-2019, 05:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Correct. The point was to throw out possible policies, then get feedback.

This is the case with ALL bills. Their framers can only guess at what obstacles and costs there might be beforehand. The point of getting something on paper is that possible stakeholders can see what you have in mind and provide feedback.

The difference here is that this one calls from more radical change and so provokes more public discussion. 

How one comes down on the issue of climate change is crucial to how one views the bill. If you think anthropogenic global warming is a croc, then the whole thing looks crazy.  If you buy forecasts of a "tipping point" in the near future, then you want legislators to get started on rolling back carbon emissions and the like. NOW. Crazy is doing nothing. This is a start.

I believe climate change is real. The whole thing was insane. 

As usual with AOC, the GND was fluff and emotion with no real substance. We aren't "doing nothing". Renewable energy subsidies are a thing (which could easily be higher while decreasing fossil fuel subsidies). 

[Aquapod770]

(08-20-2019, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: Perhaps a conversation on how we can confront climate change without people denying it simply because they are clutching to their purses?

So how does proposing something that would cost every American a Lamborghini convince people not to "clutch their purses"? Why not propose legislation to increase renewable R&D funding while cutting fossil fuel subsidies? There are many other ways to spur a conversation that aren't incredibly stupid. 









Just admit the GND was a turd. 

[GMDino]

(08-20-2019, 09:50 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So how does proposing something that would cost every American a Lamborghini convince people not to "clutch their purses"? Why not propose legislation to increase renewable R&D funding while cutting fossil fuel subsidies? There are many other ways to spur a conversation that aren't incredibly stupid. 









Just admit the GND was a turd. 

I admit it was a start.  Hard to have a conversation when one side is dismissive of the plan and the problem completely.

[Aquapod770]

(08-20-2019, 09:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: I admit it was a start.  Hard to have a conversation when one side is dismissive of the plan and the problem completely.

Because the plan was incredibly stupid. You claim one side is dismissive while dismissing criticism of the GND because "it was a start".

Renewable energy usuage has been rising every year. Fossile fuel usage has dropped as well. Renewables have slowed under the Trump admin, but we haven't seen a surge in coal like many predicted. Is that not a good start? Why does the GND have to be the start? 

I dont know if proposing such a radically bad solution is a good starting point. The GND should be dismissed. It sucked. Let's instead focus on continuing the growth of renewable energy. 

[hollodero]

(08-20-2019, 09:32 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: She back tracked because of the backlash. 

Spur what conversation? A conversation about climate change? Sure...I guess...but those conversations have already been going on.

Yeah maybe it was going on, but as of now one of your major parties predominantly rejects climate change and its dangers completely, up to calling everyone an idiot who believes climate change is real, sooo the conversations weren't going too well before.
Also, what I find way worse than a possibly bad polic proposal is what FOX and other right wing megaphones made out of it. She wants to forbid air travel and force everyone to become vegan! She says the world ends in 20 years! That crazy lady!
If the proposal is that bad, why would someone have to invent stuff on top of it?

(08-20-2019, 09:32 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Plus is one of the worst proposal ever really the best way to spur conversation (and potentially win people to your side)? It's a terrible way to go about it. 

Maybe, sure. I tend to agree , but still feel it kind of reached that goal. People talk and put climate change back in their minds, as well they should. And maybe to some, the more ridiculous conservative talking points (it's crazy/it's a hoax) get exposed.

[Aquapod770]

(08-20-2019, 10:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah maybe it was going on, but as of now one of your major parties predominantly rejects climate change and its dangers completely, up to calling everyone an idiot who believes climate change is real, sooo the conversations weren't going too well before.
Also, what I find way worse than a possibly bad polic proposal is what FOX and other right wing megaphones made out of it. She wants to forbid air travel and force everyone to become vegan! She says the world ends in 20 years! That crazy lady!
If the proposal is that bad, why would someone have to invent stuff on top of it?



Maybe, sure. I tend to agree , but still feel it kind of reached that goal. People talk and put climate change back in their minds, as well they should. And maybe to some, the more ridiculous conservative talking points (it's crazy/it's a hoax) get exposed.

Fair enough. I think the media is to blame for a lot of the division in this country. I just don't think supporting something equally as crazy is a great way to find common ground on any topic. 

[hollodero]

(08-20-2019, 10:53 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Fair enough. I think the media is to blame for a lot of the division in this country.

Nah, I find that too easy an explanation. E.g. I also blame other aspects of american exceptionalism for that, as well as your political system and your voting system and whatnot.
The media often nut just creates, but also reflects divisions.

(08-20-2019, 10:53 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I just don't think supporting something equally as crazy is a great way to find common ground on any topic. 

That's also fair enough. It probably isn't. It's difficult though, how else to go about it? I wouldn't know how one could do that in that climate using reason. Reason's not popular.

And though it might be petty, I take issue with the words "equally crazy". To bore you with an explanation, to me pre-Trump one of the craziest things about US politics were those climate change denying republicans that held hearings with scientists in the clear intent to expose them as frauds - by something clever they bring up, like how global wobbling is not part of the models, hence the models are worthless and it took that one republican guy to prove it. Or the guys that go to congress with a snowball in their hands, or that guy with the glass and the ice cubes. There's a long list of absurd there actually. That is crazy denial. Some over the top proposals are not "equally crazy", for at least they accept reality as a basis.

Sorry about the bunch of words, but though I don't have too many issues with conservatives to begin with, that ridiculous flat-out climate change denial - paired with conspiracy theories about the "fraud science" - sported by so many of them really ticks me off.

[Aquapod770]

(08-20-2019, 01:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nah, I find that too easy an explanation. E.g. I also blame other aspects of american exceptionalism for that, as well as your political system and your voting system and whatnot.
The media often nut just creates, but also reflects divisions.

The media plays a huge role. Social media is included in that. Go out and talk to your neighbor. It's amazing what a little respect and human decency will do in a political discussion. I agree that the two party system has contributed a lot to the problem. 

Quote:That's also fair enough. It probably isn't. It's difficult though, how else to go about it? I wouldn't know how one could do that in that climate using reason. Reason's not popular. 

Like I said, talking to people face to face is the way to go. I think reason is a lot more popular than you realize. What has worked for me is focusing on the benefits of renewable energy. There are multiple reasons that renewable energy is good besides climate change. 

Quote:And though it might be petty, I take issue with the words "equally crazy". To bore you with an explanation, to me pre-Trump one of the craziest things about US politics were those climate change denying republicans that held hearings with scientists in the clear intent to expose them as frauds - by something clever they bring up, like how global wobbling is not part of the models, hence the models are worthless and it took that one republican guy to prove it. Or the guys that go to congress with a snowball in their hands, or that guy with the glass and the ice cubes. There's a long list of absurd there actually. That is crazy denial. Some over the top proposals are not "equally crazy", for at least they accept reality as a basis.


Sorry about the bunch of words, but though I don't have too many issues with conservatives to begin with, that ridiculous flat-out climate change denial - paired with conspiracy theories about the "fraud science" - sported by so many of them really ticks me off.

To each their own, but I definitely would call an economy wrecking proposal "equally crazy". Now it is just a non-binding resolution, so arguing costs isn't super realistic, but then it begs the question...why even propose it? Like I've said there are other ways to start a discussion on climate change. The GND is meant to further the divide. Not bring people to common ground. 

According to a gallup poll. 60% of Americans support reducing fossil fuel consumption with only 17% "strongly opposed". There is common ground to be found. It's there. Insane over-the-top proposals aren't the way to reach it. 
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248006/americans-support-reducing-fossil-fuel.aspx