ali123
Banned
I got awards.... and look at me..... I aint exactly a rocket scientist.
Good Laugh.. alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- Thread starter ali123
- Start date
RedBull
Registered
Hear, hear
ali123
Banned
its inexperience in LIFE really.... a lot of millennials fancy themselves educated world travelers and claim to have alllll sorts of solutions to societies problems.... they have very very high opinions of themselves and abilities...…..
TallTom
Registered
I don't disagree with everything she wants to change. Trying to eliminate lobbyist contributions and big money PACs are long overdue. Doing away with Senate/congressional pensions, I'm all for.
I think her failing will be her "I know it all and my Twitter followers love me" attitude. Her lack of political savvy is just rookie stuff. I actually think it's a good thing we have some youth in elected positions.
Youth always has grand ideas and lofty ambitions. If they accomplish 20% of it, they do good. Doesn't mean she will.
But it's good to see a shift in perspectives in our government.
I think her failing will be her "I know it all and my Twitter followers love me" attitude. Her lack of political savvy is just rookie stuff. I actually think it's a good thing we have some youth in elected positions.
Youth always has grand ideas and lofty ambitions. If they accomplish 20% of it, they do good. Doesn't mean she will.
But it's good to see a shift in perspectives in our government.
RedBull
Registered
jermzfree
Registered
Honestly I think people are missing the mark on her. She seems driven, honest, wicked talented connecting with the people, idealistic, and naive at times. Again she is 29 years old. A breath of fresh air to me. But come on! I can think of at least one clown in politics who definitely ain't as smart as her.
Mr Brown
Registered
Driven? Yes. Honest? If she is, she won't be for long. Talented at connect with people? Some people, sure. Idealistic. Yes. Naive? Yes.
There are many people in the political arena far more stupid than she, but that's more a function of how low the bar is for entry into the field than how bright she is.
All the idealogues like her come in refusing compromise, touting some great new plan, but the reality of governing is far more intricate and delicate. Alliances must be formed, opponents must be worked with. As Trump is finding out, getting elected was the easy part, actually doing your job is difficult.
jermzfree
Registered
That just might be Trump's legacy. Lowering the bar.
Mr Brown
Registered
I do not disagree with you. It was pretty low to begin with, but he's lowered it even further.
So, AOC is not crazy or stupid - sorry peeps. Maybe naive, but a lot of the stuff in her Green New Deal are things planners are already looking at. I agree that most politicians would never offer these radical ideas, but they are not off the wall.
It has long been known that a system of UHS (Ultra High Speed) trains would be more efficient than air travel. Also, the footprint of train tracks and stations are much less destructive than airports. Many countries use elevated tracks to allow farming and livestock to pass under train lines and to avoid automobile intersections. We are way behind on this, Japan, France and others already have trains doing 200+ mph. Even UHS trains are super efficient and with battery tech, they could be nearly carbon neutral in just a few years.
Advanced self driving cars have long been discussed as a preferred option to building more and more roads. These cars could run the interstates in virtual trains at 100 mph, dropping off cars at their exits.
Essentially a NASCAR draft every morning to work! No more traffic jams due to centrally coordinated traffic flows. We are pretty close to being able to do this technically now, problem is too many human piloted cars mixed in that will gum up things and cause massive pile ups.
I was at a seminar (2 years ago now) where the key note speaker said in 5 years computers will be as smart as a high average human. In 10 years they will be smarter than any human ever can be. What leaders aren't telling you is that our economy won't need people very soon. Computers won't just replace blue collar jobs, they will soon start replacing white collar jobs. So we are going to have to do something radical and redefine what "work" is. One solution is a standard income minimum. This will allow society a little more time to adjust, but just a little IMHO. A standard income minimum is not a giveaway to lazy and brown people, it is a pacifier to keep people displaced from all work by machines from becoming violent. BTW: brown people aren't taking your jobs, your iPad is. The other is using military force on the population.
We are at a moment where something radical is the only passable solution. Politically correct steps are not going to address the future that is inevitable. AOC's proposal is certainly a long shot, but you can believe that the grumpy old white men's solution isn't going to benefit you unless you have a billion in the bank. We're at the point where something disruptive has to happen.
It has long been known that a system of UHS (Ultra High Speed) trains would be more efficient than air travel. Also, the footprint of train tracks and stations are much less destructive than airports. Many countries use elevated tracks to allow farming and livestock to pass under train lines and to avoid automobile intersections. We are way behind on this, Japan, France and others already have trains doing 200+ mph. Even UHS trains are super efficient and with battery tech, they could be nearly carbon neutral in just a few years.
Advanced self driving cars have long been discussed as a preferred option to building more and more roads. These cars could run the interstates in virtual trains at 100 mph, dropping off cars at their exits.
Essentially a NASCAR draft every morning to work! No more traffic jams due to centrally coordinated traffic flows. We are pretty close to being able to do this technically now, problem is too many human piloted cars mixed in that will gum up things and cause massive pile ups.
I was at a seminar (2 years ago now) where the key note speaker said in 5 years computers will be as smart as a high average human. In 10 years they will be smarter than any human ever can be. What leaders aren't telling you is that our economy won't need people very soon. Computers won't just replace blue collar jobs, they will soon start replacing white collar jobs. So we are going to have to do something radical and redefine what "work" is. One solution is a standard income minimum. This will allow society a little more time to adjust, but just a little IMHO. A standard income minimum is not a giveaway to lazy and brown people, it is a pacifier to keep people displaced from all work by machines from becoming violent. BTW: brown people aren't taking your jobs, your iPad is. The other is using military force on the population.
We are at a moment where something radical is the only passable solution. Politically correct steps are not going to address the future that is inevitable. AOC's proposal is certainly a long shot, but you can believe that the grumpy old white men's solution isn't going to benefit you unless you have a billion in the bank. We're at the point where something disruptive has to happen.
TallTom
Registered
All that may be so. But let's take one part to simplify our task to change.
The railroad system would have to be revitalized. It's a mess. How much will that cost?
This country has already been disrupted. NAFTA. Perot told us what would happen.
I think you should volunteer to manage the next green UHS project Arch.
Linky below
Califonia Bullet Train
Mr Brown
Registered
With due respect to both your education and experience, you're wrong. Radical solutions are easy to talk about and great to campaign on, and impossible to govern with. Agreed a green solution needs to be put in place, and agreed it will come at the expense of grumpy old white men, but it's not going to happen just because it's the right thing, or because a group of people think it should. In order to get what you want in the political arena you have to find common ground with your opponents. That's the only way anything gets done.
TallTom
Registered
Yeah all that education and they think they have the answers. And we owe them something now. Oh yeah and if we don't pay them 116K a year they don't work. Cuz they are worth it in their mind.
I didn't say I was in favor of the green new deal, just pointing out that some pretty serious thought went into it. I don't see any serious coun/er proposals to it. most involve ways to keep us headed down the same dead ends while protecting this business model or that business model
Mr Brown
Registered
Which is exactly why a radical shift is a non-starter. Incremental change is possible. We have to play the long game....
Mr Brown
Registered
That's like inviting someone to captain the next Titanic....
vuuawwywaww7 x
So compromise is a place between two extremes. What the right has succeeded in since the rise of the Tea Party is to establish the radical right position. Bill Clinton was decidedly centrist and Obama was also fairly centrist leaning. This means that most compromises landed somewhere between the middle and the right. What Bernie showed is that there was heavy support in this country for a radical left position. AOC is pushing that to the next level and trying to start the debate on the far left, rather than the far right. I think this is a clever move and quite bold. The right has not addressed climate change in any meaningful way because it is not consistent with their far-right agenda. Their solution is to ignore the consequences and ultimately use military suppression and diversion to hold things together. AOC has put a marker down saying there is another way and established a far-left starting point for the debate.
Obamacare is more popular than any political figure or group now. Turns out people didn't want to get rid of it they wanted to get more aggressive with it. In Germany, there is virtually no residential power now - it's all solar. That's Germany, a place not know for sunny skies! We have huge deserts in the southwest that could produce tons of energy. Our country was made for sun & wind power.
A lot of the conventional thinking is based on shaky premises, we're at the point where we are going to have to start questioning our norms. Like her or not Pelosi is a genius. In exchange for her getting voted in as speaker, she allowed a certain amount of Dems to vote against her and agreed to let these more radical proposals to get aired. Get them in front of people and see if there can be any traction. That's also why McConnel put it to a vote, so Senators would have to take a stand before the public gave the GND a thumbs up or down. Some very skilled politics are at work here, and AOC is not behind all of it.
So compromise is a place between two extremes. What the right has succeeded in since the rise of the Tea Party is to establish the radical right position. Bill Clinton was decidedly centrist and Obama was also fairly centrist leaning. This means that most compromises landed somewhere between the middle and the right. What Bernie showed is that there was heavy support in this country for a radical left position. AOC is pushing that to the next level and trying to start the debate on the far left, rather than the far right. I think this is a clever move and quite bold. The right has not addressed climate change in any meaningful way because it is not consistent with their far-right agenda. Their solution is to ignore the consequences and ultimately use military suppression and diversion to hold things together. AOC has put a marker down saying there is another way and established a far-left starting point for the debate.
Obamacare is more popular than any political figure or group now. Turns out people didn't want to get rid of it they wanted to get more aggressive with it. In Germany, there is virtually no residential power now - it's all solar. That's Germany, a place not know for sunny skies! We have huge deserts in the southwest that could produce tons of energy. Our country was made for sun & wind power.
A lot of the conventional thinking is based on shaky premises, we're at the point where we are going to have to start questioning our norms. Like her or not Pelosi is a genius. In exchange for her getting voted in as speaker, she allowed a certain amount of Dems to vote against her and agreed to let these more radical proposals to get aired. Get them in front of people and see if there can be any traction. That's also why McConnel put it to a vote, so Senators would have to take a stand before the public gave the GND a thumbs up or down. Some very skilled politics are at work here, and AOC is not behind all of it.
Similar threads
