Garden of Eden Escorts
Toronto Escorts

You heard it here first

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the first female US president
After eight years of Donald Trump, Americans will certainly be ready for some 'radical' change.

Carli Pierson
Donald Trump's shocking victory in the 2016 presidential race caused liberals across the United States to question whether the country was indeed ready for a woman president. Since then, there has been much speculation about various female politicians and celebrities running for office, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, Oprah, Michelle Obama, and others. There have even been rumours that Hillary Clinton might run again.

I, however, don't see any of these women making it to the White House. I think the first female president of the US will be New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or AOC as she has come to be known). It may take her another six years to get there, but the youngest woman elected to the US Congress will win the presidency. Here is how and why.

Alexandria is not Hillary
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election but lost key swing states and, under our complicated and arguably unfair Electoral College system, this meant losing the presidency.

But the biggest political upset in recent US history cannot simply be blamed on the unfairness of the electoral system, under which countless Democrats managed to defeat opponents stronger, and more experienced, than Donald Trump.

Clinton lost the election because she failed to convince working-class voters that she would be able to understand and address their growing grievances. While she started her journey as a young, educated, idealistic feminist believing in social justice and equality, over the course of her life in the political limelight, she (and her husband) made a fortune of over $50m, including $21m in speaking fees she was paid by Wall Street businesses and other interest groups. She gradually became an unrelatable poster-child of corporate America's greed. This, combined with the proliferation of fake news and misinformation provided by Trump's campaign were the proverbial "nails in the coffin" for her presidential bid.

Unlike Clinton and most politicians for that matter, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rejected donations from corporate political action committees, or PACs. She didn't take millions from Wall Street and then preach to blue-collar Americans that she understood their struggles. This helped her not to be perceived as a member of the Washington establishment like Clinton and her peers Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, for example.

Moreover, Clinton just offered middle-of-the-road policies that simply promised more of the same. By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez, as an out and proud democratic socialist, advocated for federally guaranteed jobs and "Medicare-For-All," called for tuition-free public colleges and the dismantling of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. With this, AOC made it clear that she offers a different kind of politics that is unadulterated by corporate and lobbyist connections. This is, in fact, what helped her defeat a 20-year incumbent and the fourth-ranking House Democrat, Joe Crowley, in the Democratic race for New York's 14th Congressional District.

After she was sworn into Congress, she continued talking about progressive policies, calling for a return to John F Kennedy's 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans and supporting a "Green New Deal", a proposed economic programme addressing climate change and inequality. If Ocasio-Cortez continues down this path and successfully rejects cooptation by PACs, working-class Americans across party lines would undoubtedly be moved to vote for her.

AOC is also a master of grassroots organising and, while her actions convey that she is in touch with the challenges ordinary Americans face, her greatest asset may be her ability to connect with them in a way that feels genuine and not contrived. Millennials, for example, find AOC more relatable than any other potential presidential candidate. With her 2.37 million Twitter followers and growing, she is a skilled social media user who knows how to connect and communicate with the younger generation and will certainly be able to secure their vote. And in the coming decade, it increasingly seems that it will be the millennials who will become the most important voting bloc within the US electorate.

And finally, AOC was also able to capture the attention of the press and has already shown much skill in fending off public attacks. Even before she was sworn into office on January 3, conservatives had already launched a smear campaign against her, which is indicative of how much she scares them.

First, there was noise about the house she grew up in in a New York suburb; then much discussion about designer clothes she wore during a 2018 photo shoot. Just after her swearing-in, the right-wing news site The Daily Caller posted a fake picture of her in a bathtub. And then the conservative media tried to troll her with a video on the internet of her dancing in her college days. But this turned out to be a media boost for the freshman Congresswoman and she trolled them right back by making a wildly popular video of herself dancing into her Congress office.

With the election of Trump and AOC's rise to stardom, one thing has become undoubtedly clear: US voters are desperate for new politics and fresh faces who can offer real change. And with her charisma, presence and political acumen, Ocasio-Cortez is able to tap into these sentiments. To put it in Trump's words, Ocasio-Cortez is a "winner", she is "winning".

Her popularity in the press parallels Trump's during his presidential bid in 2016 when he proved true the cliché "any press is good press". Yes, it was thanks to the media's obsession with him, both on the right and the left, that he remained a constant figure in the public eye, which ultimately paved the way for the unimaginable to happen - his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

The same is already proving true for AOC. She is the Democrat that Republicans (and even some Democrats) love to hate, and she will be all the better for it.

AOC will run in 2024 after eight years of Trump
Although Alexandria has much political potential, she is unlikely to run in 2020 and challenge Trump. After Clinton's upset in 2016, the Democratic establishment does not want a socialist to run for president, who would be seen as "a radical" and would risk alienating more conservative Democrats.

The Democratic Party is more likely to nominate someone like former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke, who will stick to the traditional Democratic centre-left talking points: "compromise, compromise, compromise". If that happens, Trump will certainly bully him into a corner on the campaign trail and during the debates and will go on to win the 2020 presidential election, to the despair and shame of millions of Americans.

Another Trump presidency will certainly drag the country into deeper political, social and economic crises and will convince disillusioned voters once and for all that the Donald was never the man who could or even wanted to "drain the swamp". It could finally be the wake-up call for millions of Americans to realise that they need to try something drastically different - something "radical". That something, as Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly pointed out, could be what has already been done successfully in Scandinavian countries, for example.

At the same time, these five years will also give AOC the time to understand how Washington works, build her political profile and prove herself as a house representative. She will also quietly make more allies in the Democratic Party and after her two-year-term as congresswoman is over, she may choose to move up the political ladder by running for office as a senator for her home state of New York, in order to broaden her political experience before a run for president in 2024.

Yes, it will take all of that for Ocasio-Cortez to win the 2024 Democratic nomination. I would even venture to predict that she will run on a ticket with a female vice-presidential candidate, perhaps Senator Kamala Harris, if the forces that are the Democratic National Committee (DNC) permit such a scandal. Don't forget how the DNC buried Senator Bernie Sanders in his run for the nomination in 2016. But after eight years of Trumpism, I believe that America will make sure that doesn't happen again to AOC.

But apart from resistance within the DNC, perhaps the greatest challenge Ocasio-Cortez will face along the way to 2024 is remaining true to herself and her principles and withstanding the ineluctable and incessant weathering of the lobbyists who effectively run Congress behind the scenes. In her 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, she admitted she is worried about how Washington would change her because it inevitably changes everyone.

If she manages to "survive" Washington and emerge stronger, the 2024 Democratic nomination for president definitely has "Ocasio-Cortez" written all over it. I, for one, will definitely vote for her.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
So it's not even mid-Jan and AOC has been in Congress for all of almost 2 weeks. People are getting WAY ahead of themselves here. She's as unqualified for being President at this stage as Trump. Let's see how she does in committees, in actually voting and making decisions (and influencing others in Congress) before declaring her President in 2024. Personally, I think she is WAY over-rated at this stage in her political career.

Oh, same with Beto...
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
So it's not even mid-Jan and AOC has been in Congress for all of almost 2 weeks. People are getting WAY ahead of themselves here. She's as unqualified for being President at this stage as Trump. Let's see how she does in committees, in actually voting and making decisions (and influencing others in Congress) before declaring her President in 2024. Personally, I think she is WAY over-rated at this stage in her political career.

Oh, same with Beto...
You may very well be right, and the experiences of the past support your position.

But it is by now pretty clear to an objective observer that the politics as usual is not working. Both political parties are stuck in the imperial past, advocating for endless wars and mayhem around the world, while USA descends towards 3rd world status for half of its population.

Does anybody here really believe that Trump or Hillary is anything different than Coca Cola. and Pepsi.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Of course they do, half of Americans don't pay taxes now, they are probably the ones voting for the raise in taxes the get something for nothing crowd. They want driven successful people to pay their way, pathetic.
Or maybe they just want their country to not spend $1-2 trillion more than it takes in in taxes.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
Or maybe they just want their country to not spend $1-2 trillion more than it takes in in taxes.
Ok so stop the spending, why raise the taxes on people who already pay the most? how about the 50% who don't pay anything? It's nice of them to ask others to pay even more while they contribute nothing, how about they pay their "fair share".
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Ok so stop the spending, why raise the taxes on people who already pay the most? how about the 50% who don't pay anything? It's nice of them to ask others to pay even more while they contribute nothing, how about they pay their "fair share".
The rich can easily pay enough to fund the country adequately. People on welfare obviously cannot pay any taxes.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
Doubtful. There are many other females in both parties who are far more qualified.

But Bernie did just hire her Social media team to add to his campaign. I expect she will be out campaigning for him.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
The rich can easily pay enough to fund the country adequately. People on welfare obviously cannot pay any taxes.
Why should the rich pay when 50% of the country doesn't, they already pay the most. People on welfare should find a job, the U.S has many jobs that remain unfilled, give the the jobs migrants do. The problem is Americans think these jobs are beneath them, instead they sit at home and collect welfare. Why not educate or train these people to work instead of sitting home and doing nothing living off taxpayers? only about 12% of the population is on some type of welfare, what about the other 32% that pay nothing.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Why should the rich pay when 50% of the country doesn't, they already pay the most. People on welfare should find a job, the U.S has many jobs that remain unfilled, give the the jobs migrants do. The problem is Americans think these jobs are beneath them, instead they sit at home and collect welfare. Why not educate or train these people to work instead of sitting home and doing nothing living off taxpayers? only about 12% of the population is on some type of welfare, what about the other 32% that pay nothing.
You do realize that many employed people (at minimum wage) don't pay taxes. Are you asking them to 'find jobs' as well?
Those minimum wage workers are the reason why the rich get their money, and yes... the rich should pay taxes to fund services that benefit those people.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
You're right, you should raise taxes on the homeless instead.
Why tax the people who have money to pay taxes?
They do pay taxes, more than anyone else, now she wants 'Rich people" to pay more than half of what they earn for people who do nothing or very little, there are lots of job opening in the U.S. but people are either uneducated, under trained or think some jobs are beneath them. 0.5% of the U.S population is homeless what about the other 49.5% who don't pay taxes. Can you start coming up with better arguments to make your point?
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
They do pay taxes, more than anyone else, now she wants 'Rich people" to pay more than half of what they earn for people who do nothing or very little, there are lots of job opening in the U.S. but people are either uneducated, under trained or think some jobs are beneath them. 0.5% of the U.S population is homeless what about the other 49.5% who don't pay taxes. Can you start coming up with better arguments to make your point?
Answer me this: how are those uneducated and under trained people supposed to get the education and training they need to fill these positions that you claim exist? They have no money, right?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Why should the rich pay when 50% of the country doesn't, they already pay the most. People on welfare should find a job, the U.S has many jobs that remain unfilled, give the the jobs migrants do. The problem is Americans think these jobs are beneath them, instead they sit at home and collect welfare. Why not educate or train these people to work instead of sitting home and doing nothing living off taxpayers? only about 12% of the population is on some type of welfare, what about the other 32% that pay nothing.
You ask why rich people should pay more taxes?

They should pay more taxes because they can, and because they live in a society of people. There are no examples of income taxation systems that are not progressive, exactly because the richer people have the ability and most people think the responsibility to pay more.

In addition, in a consumer based society like USA, it is beneficial for society as a whole that the poor become productive and consuming members of society.
The old saying is true: when the tide comes in, all boats rise. Remember the extreme right wing Henry Ford doubling the pay for his workers "so they all could afford to buy a Ford car"
In. the very successful social democratic countries like Scandinavia and Germany, the governments spend large amount of money on education, training and retraining of people, and rehabilitation of criminals, in order to make everybody productive members of society.
And, what may be surprising to you, the rich in Scandinavia are not generally complaining about the heavy taxation. That is necause it is beneficial and right for everybody that there are no desperate poor people.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
Answer me this: how are those uneducated and under trained people supposed to get the education and training they need to fill these positions that you claim exist? They have no money, right?
How about getting a loan to go to school like most other people do? there are also training programs funded by the government, how do you propose they better themselves , by collecting welfare? There are also jobs you don't need either for, many migrants come in and do seasonal work, why can't they do those jobs or work in fast wood or other menial labour? Those jobs are always available, there is a lot of turnover in those positions because driven people move up and actually try to better themselves.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
How about getting a loan to go to school like most other people do? there are also training programs funded by the government, how do you propose they better themselves , by collecting welfare? There are also jobs you don't need either for, many migrants come in and do seasonal work, why can't they do those jobs or work in fast wood or other menial labour? Those jobs are always available, there is a lot of turnover in those positions because driven people move up and actually try to better themselves.
Have you ever tried getting a loan with no income and no savings?

RE: your question regarding seasonal work, etc... I COMPLETELY agree with you.
In my industry I am exposed to a shit load of seasonal workers. We have to continually have job postings for positions that we know no locals will be willing to fill, just to satisfy the labour laws. Seasonal workers actually cost more than local workers.
But, locals (in Canada and the US), are 'too good' to do this work. So here we are.
Although, to be fair, the seasonal workers, individually can basically do the work of 3 or 4 local workers, and they will do it happily.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
You ask why rich people should pay more taxes?

They should pay more taxes because they can, and because they live in a society of people. There are no examples of income taxation systems that are not progressive, exactly because the richer people have the ability and most people think the responsibility to pay more.

In addition, in a consumer based society like USA, it is beneficial for society as a whole that the poor become productive and consuming members of society.
The old saying is true: when the tide comes in, all boats rise. Remember the extreme right wing Henry Ford doubling the pay for his workers "so they all could afford to buy a Ford car"
In. the very successful social democratic countries like Scandinavia and Germany, the governments spend large amount of money on education, training and retraining of people, and rehabilitation of criminals, in order to make everybody productive members of society.
And, what may be surprising to you, the rich in Scandinavia are not generally complaining about the heavy taxation. That is necause it is beneficial and right for everybody that there are no desperate poor people.
I'm not disagreeing with a progressive tax but there's a limit I think anyone who has to give up more than 50% of what they earn is ridiculous.How do you propose the poor become more productive and contribute more to society? How about the governments becoming more efficient spending the revenues they already get, there is a lot of wasteful spending going on. Are you willing to give up more than 50% of your pay to help society? Just because they can pay more it doesn't mean that they should. Nobody in Germany pays above 45% of their income to taxes, you can't compare the small countries like Sweden And Denmark to the U.S.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
I'm not disagreeing with a progressive tax but there's a limit I think anyone who has to give up more than 50% of what they earn is ridiculous.How do you propose the poor become more productive and contribute more to society? How about the governments becoming more efficient spending the revenues they already get, there is a lot of wasteful spending going on. Are you willing to give up more than 50% of your pay to help society? Just because they can pay more it doesn't mean that they should. Nobody in Germany pays above 45% of their income to taxes, you can't compare the small countries like Sweden And Denmark to the U.S.
The reason you cannot compare small countries to USA is that USA spends a couple of trillion dollars on military around the world instead of spending funds on welfare for it's own citizens. If that is how the ruling class want to spend their taxes, they should bloody well have to pay the full amount, and not loan a trillion dollars every year.

The bailout by Obama and the tax cuts by Trump are equally outrageous.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts