+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. (/Thread-Campaign-funding-struggles-for-AOC)
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - hollodero - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 09:25 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: 1) Does calling the electoral college a scam and disservice to the constitution because your side lost count? She would kind of have a point about it hurting minorities if she brought up gerrymandering, but that's not what she focused on.
No, that does not count. It's perfectly legitimate to question old customs and laws. That is very, very different from claiming the other sides brings millions and millions of illegals to the voting booth, with buses and whatnot.
(08-22-2019, 09:25 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: 2) Does threatening someone with your "subpoena power" count?
No.
That's a perfectly legit power and all things aside, there are solid reasons to use that power.
(08-22-2019, 09:25 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: She's certainly got a ways to go to catch up to ol' Drumpf, but she's doing a great job so far
I don't comment the rest, for I do not know too much about her. Maybe she conducts herself awfully as well in some regard. But be that as it may, I'm sure she has a long way to catch up to Trump, that is fair enough for me.
And as for "bringing up Trump", I rather brought up the GOP (before you called her "the left's version of Trump", where I sure talked about Trump then). But sure, most things are somehow about the opposide side and current leadership too, eg. also about Trump, who knows more about science, technology and the climate than everyone and calls it a hoax. The comparison plays a big part in calling thoughts, words, proposals etc. bad or crazy.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-22-2019
Disliking Trump's behavior and words and calling AOC a vapid person who isn't remotely aware of how ignorant she is are not mutually exclusive. I did enjoy her recent dismissive comments about middle America and the EC. She really puts the fine point on the Democratic party's disdain for Americans who don't live in major cities.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - PhilHos - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Disliking Trump's behavior and words and calling AOC a vapid person who isn't remotely aware of how ignorant she is are not mutually exclusive. I did enjoy her recent dismissive comments about middle America and the EC. She really puts the fine point on the Democratic party's disdain for Americans who don't live in major cities.
For myself, I particularly enjoyed her bragging about saving her district $3 billion (or whatever the amount was in tax breaks for Amazon) that could be better spent elsewhere. And then people defending her by pointing out she was an economics major in college.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - michaelsean - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 11:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: To me it comes down to if we can agree on reducing pollution and the use of fossil fuels then we can agree that doing things to benefit the environment is good. So it is not that far of a leap to agreeing that climate change is worth working on.
I *do* see the Earth headed toward disaster. Rising sea levels and higher temps are just the most obvious examples. Humans have an amazing ability to adapt to our environments and then to alter them to our will. But we are still just animals and can only survive if we have air and water and food and shelter. Climate change will challenge and change a lot of that.
We are seeing the shifting weather patterns already. The question is if we can slow it, stop it or reverse it. Or if it is too late.
Now, with all that said, a natural disaster could radically alter our planet and make all of this moot. Gigantic volcanic eruption that cools the earth for example. But we should be working (together) toward answers anyway. IMHO.
But are the shifting patterns only worse because of how we are arranged now or are they worse overall. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but it seems a little ridiculous to just assume we are now at the ideal climate and any shift is a disaster for this planet.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - GMDino - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 01:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But are the shifting patterns only worse because of how we are arranged now or are they worse overall. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but it seems a little ridiculous to just assume we are now at the ideal climate and any shift is a disaster for this planet.
We are alive by a fluke of nature. Temperature, water, oxygen, distance from the sun, etc. There is a balance that allows us to survive. Altering that alters our chances.
The climate is changing. We are affecting it (we can debate how much) and we need to work together to try and change that.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - hollodero - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 01:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But are the shifting patterns only worse because of how we are arranged now or are they worse overall. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but it seems a little ridiculous to just assume we are now at the ideal climate and any shift is a disaster for this planet.
It's quite a sensitive balance. One issue are feedback loops - think melting ice caps mean less ice on the surface, meaning less sunlight gets reflected and it gets even warmer. Or the oceans/tundras that can hold less CO2 because ot the warming, hence releasing more gas in the atmosphere and making things worse. Or a collapsing gulf stream. There are many of these feedbacks, and not many are even understood.
Now "worse", by that I might think about spreading deserts, flooded coastal areas, sour oceans (which might be bad for microorganisms, which will be quite bad for every other life form), vast portions of inhabitable lands, quite certainly more hurricanes and things like that. Things that won't necessarily extinct us, but the crisis developing might do the rest - think about climate refugees, wars over ressources and cultivated land and so on.
Now the planet sure will survive, we don't need to save the planet. We need to save us. And even if you assume humankind might be able to survive and arrange itself with a warmer planet in the end, this process would come with much death and devastation still.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - GMDino - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 02:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's quite a sensitive balance. One issue are feedback loops - think melting ice caps mean less ice on the surface, meaning less sunlight gets reflected and it gets even warmer. Or the oceans/tundras that can hold less CO2 because ot the warming, hence releasing more gas in the atmosphere and making things worse. Or a collapsing gulf stream. There are many of these feedbacks, and not many are even understood.
Now "worse", by that I might think about spreading deserts, flooded coastal areas, sour oceans (which might be bad for microorganisms, which will be quite bad for every other life form), vast portions of inhabitable lands, quite certainly more hurricanes and things like that. Things that won't necessarily extinct us, but the crisis developing might do the rest - think about climate refugees, wars over ressources and cultivated land and so on.
Now the planet sure will survive, we don't need to save the planet. We need to save us. And even if you assume humankind might be able to survive and arrange itself with a warmer planet in the end, this process would come with much death and devastation still.
100% accurate.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - PhilHos - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 01:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: We are alive by a fluke of nature. Temperature, water, oxygen, distance from the sun, etc. There is a balance that allows us to survive. Altering that alters our chances.
The climate is changing. We are affecting it (we can debate how much) and we need to work together to try and change that.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to protecting the environment, however, if we are a product of nature, how can we then destroy nature?
Is there any other species that irrevocably destroys or is capable of irrevocably destroying itself and/or it's environment? Or is there any other species capable of preventing its own destruction/extinction?
It just seems weird to me that we're just a natural part of nature and yet we believe we have the capacity to essentially 'overrule' nature.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - hollodero - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 02:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not saying I'm opposed to protecting the environment, however, if we are a product of nature, how can we then destroy nature?
Is there any other species that irrevocably destroys or is capable of irrevocably destroying itself and/or it's environment?
Well, a virus.
(08-22-2019, 02:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It just seems weird to me that we're just a natural part of nature and yet we believe we have the capacity to essentially 'overrule' nature.
We can certainly have a devastating impact. Our nuclear arsenals alone, if all used, would determine our doom, turning earth into a radioactive wasteland. Cats sure cannot do that, and I'm glad they do not have the brains to develop nuclear weapons (I'm sure they would use it over a mouse), but we do. Our brain gave us that power. And there's no principle of nature preventing us from destroying our own livable environment.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - PhilHos - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 02:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, a virus.
Do they, though? I can see how you could argue that they destroy their environment, but do they destroy themselves?
(08-22-2019, 02:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: We can certainly have a devastating impact. Our nuclear arsenals alone, if all used, would determine our doom, turning earth into a radioactive wasteland. Cats sure cannot do that, and I'm glad they do not have the brains to develop nuclear weapons (I'm sure they would use it over a mouse), but we do. Our brain gave us that power. And there's no principle of nature preventing us from destroying our own livable environment.
No, I get that we can destroy ourselves and the environment. It's just weird to me that we can but that we're also part of nature.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - hollodero - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 03:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Do they, though? I can see how you could argue that they destroy their environment, but do they destroy themselves?
Yeah I don't know really. Should have gone with lemmings.
(08-22-2019, 03:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I get that we can destroy ourselves and the environment. It's just weird to me that we can but that we're also part of nature.
Well, weird or not, it's how it is. No principle of nature prohibits us destroying our environment and ourselves. I was under the impression you use that point to say it's not possible humans as part of nature can do such harm.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - PhilHos - 08-22-2019
(08-22-2019, 04:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, weird or not, it's how it is. No principle of nature prohibits us destroying our environment and ourselves.
I get that. I just think it's weird how that's the case. We're a part of nature, but we are capable of destroying nature. Unless, of course, the events of The Happening could actually happen.
(08-22-2019, 04:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: I was under the impression you use that point to say it's not possible humans as part of nature can do such harm.
Nope. As a Christian, I believe we are more than capable of destroying nature and should be more protective of the planet God gave us.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - Dill - 08-23-2019
(08-22-2019, 02:55 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're absolutely correct. Some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures. Not many, but it happens.
As I understand it, the Tea Party claimed deficit spending was the issue--until Trump promised a wall and a Muslim ban.
Some were for the Affordable Care Act but against Obamacare.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - JustWinBaby - 08-27-2019
(08-23-2019, 04:02 AM)Dill Wrote: As I understand it, the Tea Party claimed deficit spending was the issue--until Trump promised a wall and a Muslim ban.
Some were for the Affordable Care Act but against Obamacare.
The Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump. You're trying to create a false reality from 6-8 years ago, which is unsurprising from you. But no one will ever accuse you of NOT peddling fake news.
Movement actually has roots with Ron Paul and Fair Tax pre-2008. But of course they got handled like most of the ignorant electorate.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - Dill - 08-28-2019
(08-27-2019, 04:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump. You're trying to create a false reality from 6-8 years ago, which is unsurprising from you. But no one will ever accuse you of NOT peddling fake news.
Movement actually has roots with Ron Paul and Fair Tax pre-2008. But of course they got handled like most of the ignorant electorate.
Jeezus, abusive language going both sides. You are not "smart" because you treat everyone else as "stupid." It doesn't work that way.
And claiming the Tea party was "hijacked LONG before Trump" is a non-point, which just means you did not understand my original point.
You are the one who claimed "some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures." Your "highjacked" Tea partiers thought they were doing just that, as do Trump supporters now.
PS what ever makes you think you have not been "handled" along with the rest of the "ignorant electorate"?
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - JustWinBaby - 08-30-2019
(08-28-2019, 03:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus, abusive language going both sides. You are not "smart" because you treat everyone else as "stupid." It doesn't work that way.
And claiming the Tea party was "hijacked LONG before Trump" is a non-point, which just means you did not understand my original point.
You are the one who claimed "some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures." Your "highjacked" Tea partiers thought they were doing just that, as do Trump supporters now.
PS what ever makes you think you have not been "handled" along with the rest of the "ignorant electorate"?
#1 I don't vote for a party. My smarts are limited to my education and experience and I don't tend to have strong views or opinions outside that. It's not that you're stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject. And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance. Insecure much?
#2 What was your original point? It tends to change when you're shown to not know what you're talking about. Perhaps when you can explain what your point actually is we can debate.
I'm LITERALLY not ignorant - I have education and experience in what I usually comment on, usually much more than the talking heads. I know they're ignorant, and you think they're informative. One of us doesn't know better. That's the difference. You have debate, and you have google....yet you still anchor to your disinformation.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - JustWinBaby - 08-30-2019
(08-28-2019, 03:02 PM)Dill Wrote: And claiming the Tea party was "hijacked LONG before Trump" is a non-point, which just means you did not understand my original point.
You are the one who claimed "some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures." Your "highjacked" Tea partiers thought they were doing just that, as do Trump supporters now.
Also, obfuscation. I explained it. Tea Party started as one thing, it got hijacked by the religious right. And then Trump is something else entirely and nothing to do with Tea Party.
So congrats on making a non-sequitur, strawman and false equivalent argument all in one post.
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 08-30-2019
(08-30-2019, 04:01 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: #1 I don't vote for a party. My smarts are limited to my education and experience and I don't tend to have strong views or opinions outside that. It's not that you're stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject. And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance. Insecure much?
#2 What was your original point? It tends to change when you're shown to not know what you're talking about. Perhaps when you can explain what your point actually is we can debate.
I'm LITERALLY not ignorant - I have education and experience in what I usually comment on, usually much more than the talking heads. I know they're ignorant, and you think they're informative. One of us doesn't know better. That's the difference. You have debate, and you have google....yet you still anchor to your disinformation.
Oh, gawd, the irony is delicious.
And you have education and experience in computer science, data science, information systems, software engineering, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, business, meteorology, and atmospheric science? How long does it take to get a degree as an octuple major? Is that like a 20 year track?
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - Dill - 08-30-2019
(08-30-2019, 04:01 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not that you're stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject. And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance. Insecure much?e stupid it's just that I don't understand why you pretend to not be ignorant on the subject. And then you mock me when I expose that ignorance. Insecure much?Sure, here’s a recap.
#2 What was your original point? It tends to change when you're shown to not know what you're talking about. Perhaps when you can explain what your point actually is we can debate.
First point, made in #29, was that politicians are more beholden to donors than the people who vote for them. And that I blamed the voters who enabled them.
Your response in #30: “That wouldn’t matter if people weren’t so easily duped by commercials and op eds.”
Sounds like you were agreeing that most blame should be placed on voters. But I don’t think “commercials and op eds” are responsible for nearly the “duping” that Fox News and Rush and similar media influences are, along with a large network of Evangelical churches. And second, donor money would still be a problem even if voters weren’t “duped.”
So in #42 I said: “People are influenced by quite a bit more than that. In 2010, the Tea party didn’t fuel the largest midterm swing since the Depression because of Commercials and op eds.” I did not say that because I thought the Tea Party was not “hijacked.” Quite the opposite. Those who compose the Tea Party, morphed into Trump’s base now, are the most “hijacked” of any voter demographic. And as I have frequently argued on other threads, this is a long-term development, with clear precedents in the 80s and 90s, going back to the Republican Southern Strategy.
#49 gives your apparent counter: “You're absolutely correct. Some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures. Not many, but it happens.”
That surprised me, since I wasn’t saying “some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures.” Voters reacting to policy failures aren’t generally “duped” by commercials and op eds, are they? Hence my post #73 asking for clarification:
As I understand it, the Tea Party claimed deficit spending was the issue--until Trump promised a wall and a Muslim ban.
Some were for the Affordable Care Act but against Obamacare. (That means they didn’t really grasp the “policy failure” they were reacting to.)
The point of this being that, if their ire could be shifted so quickly and easily from the deficit to the Wall and Muslims, then perhaps what is in play is a lot of free-floating anger which can be attached, detached, and re-attached to various policy issues according to how the anger is managed. For those who don’t think this good for the country, all the more reason to worry about donors, and less reason to worry about “commercials and op eds.”
Your response, #74, continues to surprise:
The Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump. You're trying to create a false reality from 6-8 years ago, which is unsurprising from you. But no one will ever accuse you of NOT peddling fake news.
Movement actually has roots with Ron Paul and Fair Tax pre-2008. But of course they got handled like most of the ignorant electorate.
Tedious to point out that a claim the Tea Party was hijacked LONG before Trump doesn’t refute any point I have made, since I wasn’t claiming it was ONLY hijacked by Trump and ONLY in 2016. Further, one of my points was that they weren’t voting in their own interest back in 2010. So why do I need to be told they were hijacked before Trump? And why is the Tea Party, which you represented as voting in reaction to policy failures, NOW in your view “hijacked”? Was I arguing the Tea Party had no Ron Paul roots? How is any of this “peddling fake news,” or “creating a false reality”? Certainly not just because you say it is. Looks like you are imputing points to me that I did not make, and then correcting my "pretended ignorance" with a fanfare of verbal abuse.
More puzzling: in post #77 with no specification, you charge “obfuscation” “strawman” and “false equivalent.”
?? What? Which? Where”?? and you claim “you explained it.” “Trump is something else entirely and nothing to do with the Tea Party.” Well 1) that looks like a claim to be examined/debated. Not something you have “explained” and certainly nothing you have proven. And 2) it looks like you still miss the point. Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of “hijacked”? And perhaps on what makes some groups more “hijackable” than others? If Trump hijacks the Tea Party you are certain that has nothing to do with the Tea Party?
So to sum this up: Donors control politicians because voters allow and even abet it. Voters do this because (to borrow your term) they are hijacked by donors, working through a system of news and online outlets that generate anger and identify enemies to be targeted. If the Trump phenomenon has “nothing to do with the Tea Party” it is only because some targets have been shifted. Hillary is still bad, but immigrants are now the immediate threat. What deficit?
RE: Campaign funding struggles for AOC.. - Dill - 08-30-2019
(08-30-2019, 04:01 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Insecure much?
I'm LITERALLY not ignorant - I have education and experience in what I usually comment on, usually much more than the talking heads. I know they're ignorant, and you think they're informative. One of us doesn't know better. That's the difference. You have debate, and you have google....yet you still anchor to your disinformation.
Odd you jump to the conclusion my knowledge comes from "talking heads," as to opposed books, actual political science/history scholarship.
Not clear what talking heads you could be referring to, or how you could "know" they're ignorant--though the stance is not surprising given that selective hyper-skepticism of media is a feature of Trump/post-truth era. To me you're still the guy who thinks Gore would have invaded Iraq, "mid-level" bureaucrats would direct US foreign policy under Trump, Trump's character would be changed by the gravity of his office, and the legal critique of felon disenfranchisement is just "race baiting." And then there is all you "know" about climate change, from the WSJ (they're "informative" at least!) and other friends of Exxon. You are clearly an "independent" who can be counted upon to defend Republican talking points.
In this thread you are calling mere claims "explanations." People who don't respond to those claims as divine fiat you style as dis-informed, ignorant, "pretending not to be" etc. That's just truthiness.
I don't doubt you believe deeply you are right in all these matters and that others are "ignorant" and "disinformed," just as you knew you were right about about Trump's character and who would "really" make foreign policy in his administration, but people who know how to debate don't simply play claims like trump cards and insult other players. They support claims with demonstration, they take extra care to make sure they don't misunderstand others. Little incentive to do that if one assumes others are just "ignorant" from the get go.