Try 1 month for 99¢

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is alive and kicking, and when I say kicking I mean kicking anything and everything that might get in the way of her political desires. That would include common sense, reading well, understanding issues, maintaining a workable economy and preserving a stable America.

Jay Ambrose mug

Jay Ambrose

This 29-year-old Democratic House representative from New York is already a star, you know, because, she is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and beat a biggie in the primary.

She says what she thinks, although thinking is not her strong suit. She is sincere, although sincerity by itself can be worrisome. I myself like her; her enthusiasm and energy and her bold confidence that, if she can just get radical enough, she can dramatically change America.

The change might be horrific, however, and liking someone is not the same as applauding. In some ways, she is akin to President Donald Trump, a Twitter addict, sufficiently ignorant to let absurdities get a tight hold on her and gifted with a personality that says to at least some that here’s a soul who can and will get things done, important things.

Unlike Trump, she is more than a little socialistic and not yet president, even though 74 percent of Democrats said in a recent poll they would consider her. Because of a Constitution that insists you must first be 35, her chance won’t come until the 2024 election.

The good news for her and others is that the world should still be here by then.

In a recent speech Cortez said the trajectory right now is for climate change to end the world in 12 years minus solutions. People thought, oh well, she is indulging in hyperbole to make a point, but no, she said, she was serious, and she said she read as much in the Guardian newspaper. Well, the paper did report on an important study that does say something scary if questionable, that we could then experience dreadful hurt that could stick with us. But the end? Nope.

Cortez does not seem to read carefully, and she is more than a little amiss on the whole climate change issue. She wants this country running entirely on renewable fuels by 2035, which would cost trillions upon trillions even if renewables and maybe some donkey treadmills were up to the task by then. Even applying other more workable solutions, while counting for something, would still not solve the feared crisis because of other nations continuing their CO2 ways.

Even so, she says she has a way to pay for it all and that’s a 70 percent marginal tax rate on people making $10 million or more a year, and, yes, even after avoidance techniques galore and other issues there could be a revenue gain. It wouldn’t come close, however, to what is needed, and then consider her method of paying for another progressive scheme, Medicare for all.

She once again misread a published article, this one in Nation magazine, that said the Pentagon bureaucracy was so confused that it could not account for how $21 trillion was spent over 18 years. Cortez erroneously thought this meant there was something like a treasure box somewhere with all that dough in it. Even if there were, it would not take care of a program that could cost $32 trillion over a decade, according to a study of the Bernie Sanders plan.

What you would have to do to finance that is double the taxes of all individuals and corporations, the study says. Meanwhile we have an incredible, endangering debt and Cortez wants government jobs and housing for one and all and a bunch of other stuff. It exceeds some of what progressives generally want, something costing $42.5 trillion during the next decade with $44 trillion in revenues.

I am not suggesting the end of the world, just gratitude to Cortez for giving us an unintended warning about progressives.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Tribune News Service columnist Jay Ambrose can be reached at speaktojay@aol.com.

1
5
0
0
3

(73) comments

oldhomey

Ocasio-Cortez is the latest bogeywoman of the far right, adding her to their false representations of Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who is currently nicely kicking their butts. I am no great fan of the freshman Congresswoman from NYC. I think she needs to slow down and learn the ropes a little before rushing to the microphones to tell us how the republic should be governed. But she is whip smart and will, I hope, become one of our important leaders of the future as she accumulates the necessary gravitas.

Meanwhile we have the worst political commentator in the business, Mr. Ambrose, holding her up to ridicule by saying she is the equivalent of another despised, incompetent politician: "In some ways, she is akin to President Donald Trump, a Twitter addict, sufficiently ignorant to let absurdities get a tight hold on her . . . "

Ahem. He is the president that you helped elect, Mr. Ambrose, and we are now saddled with having to watch this nincompoop in the White House create further havoc for the next two years. Perhaps Mr. Ambrose would be more useful if he joined the growing chorus of conservatives who are standing up to Trump, telling him to back down, back off, shape up. I know. I know. Trump is incapable of that, but at least he can be cornered and boxed in to some extent to minimize the damage he is doing to all of us.

DMoney

I know it's not a fun or juicy thing to accept, but as I've said, most Republicans are not fans of Trump. I know that makes it harder for liberal extremists to be prejudicial, but it's the truth. Our alternative was Hillary, for cripes sake...

DMoney

By the way, kudos to you for not going all in on support for her. I can respect anyone who maintains their integrity and avoids hypocrisy.

oldhomey

You continually infer that Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president, D. What do you base that opinion on? In some ways she was one of the best if not the best prepared person ever to run for the presidency. She certainly is not a warm and fuzzy personality, and I groaned when she decided to run in 2016, knowing she would incite the same right-wing hatred that we also see with Nancy Pelosi. But certainly she would not have caused the havoc that Trump has caused our country. And still you -- despite professing to be disgusted by him -- stoutly support him at every turn. Simply, I guess, because he writes his ticket with the extreme right wing by supporting the anti-abortion agenda. Ironic, because you know that a spoiled rich brat like him who has bragged all his life about all his sexual conquests undoubtedly had a hand in more than a few actual abortions.

DMoney

You continually ignore my rebuttals. Sick of wasting my time. Hillary is the most crooked candidate to run for president maybe in history. She redefined the term "hypocrite". She took so many millions from the types of people and organizations she publicly discredited. Her judgement is that of a 7th grader with emails and Benghazi. She's corrupt, sleazy and an all around snake. All the bad things Trump is, except not honest about it.

Cassandra2

"Hillary is the most crooked candidate to run for president maybe in history..." says the D-bag, conveniently ignoring the indictments, guilty pleas and convictions stacking up around Individual One.

oldhomey

Ignore your rebuttals? What have you ever rebutted, D? I acknowledge that you say you are no fan of Trump, but I also point out that you rush to his defense whenever he is criticized. He is the most corrupt, immoral, amoral, reckless and unprepared human being ever to rise to the presidency of the U.S., and you defend him for the purpose of one issue and one issue only, he buys your support with his support of the anti-abortion movement. You list the Trump and right-wing talking points used against Hillary during the 2016 campaign, and those talking points did not stand up to scrutiny then, so they certainly would not stand up to scrutiny now. You can believe what you want to believe, but that does not make your beliefs true.

DMoney

I do not and never have rushed to the defense of Trump. I am a Republican and conservative. I have Republican and conservative opinions. Most of my views and yours will be contrasting, despite who the president is. In other cases, I can't sit idly by while clearly false and moronic comments are made like Trump starting work at 11 AM and sitting around watching TV and tweeting all day. If someone said that about Obama, or AOC, or Pelosi I'd make the same defense. Some things transcend politics and are just dumb.

DMoney

I've made probably 40-50 opinions not related to abortion. Where you get that all I care about is abortion is a mystery. Last time I'll explain that.

DMoney

Cassandra no response for you. Grow up.

martian2

HIllary is the most crooked candidate.... Well just spell it out then Dmoney, how many indictments against her, how many convictions does she have. And you can include all the people she worked with during the Obama years in answering those questions. The truth is zero, and much better record than what we got now in the white house. but if facts don't matter to you than all that doesn't matter. As long as its republican and conservative...well that is all that matters! Funny how those who are progressive get convicted in the hearts of conservatives right away without the presumption of innocent till proven guilty.

oldhomey

Hoo ha, D! I will hold you to this statement in the future.

DMoney

Regarding Hillary, I could only repeat the same accusations said 20,000 during campaign. Your side chooses not to believe them, mine does. Not going down that rabbit hole. I think the single worst fact (not even disputed by Hillary) is how many millions she and the Clinton Foundation accepted from people, companies and countries who are completely oppressive of freedom and women. Something like $65 million from Saudi ruling family who I believe still stones to death convicted homosexuals). Again, would have to dust off the accusations, but many she either admitted to or didn't dispute. The email thing is also just baffling. Personal email for confidential documents--what kind of judgement is that? Trump wouldn't even do that. Blaming Benghazi on a youtube video that made Muslims upset despite repeated warnings to her department of impending violence. Again, she didn't even dispute that.

oldhomey

Your "side", which was ginned up and publicized mostly by the Trump campaign, was completely refuted. The radical GOP operatives in Congress did their damnedest to nail Hillary on these charges. Hearing after tiresome hearing, She made fools of them in her public testimony in front of their panels. What came of it? Nothing. It went on for years. Nothing. Now we have the Russia investigation. How many people have been charged, convicted, admitted guilt? All of them Trump operatives? I have lost count, but it must be near a dozen by now, and the Mueller report still isn't completed, while the House investigation, which finally will delve into Trump's personal finances, is just beginning. Hold on to your hat, my friend, and see where it leaves your "side".

PhysicsIsFun

Ambrose blathers on condescendingly about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her lack of intelligence. Ambrose is a person who certainly does not exhibit any great intellect, but I would argue the opposite is true of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Here is a little bit from her biography on Wikipedia, "Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007, where she won second prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiology research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans. In a show of appreciation for her efforts, the International Astronomical Union named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez. In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala Youth Legislative Session. She later became the LDZ Secretary of State while she attended Boston University. Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship. She graduated c. laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics." This is some evidence that she is far from dumb. She was elected by the citizens of her district to shake things up. She had no corporate sponsorship. She speaks her mind and says what many of her constituents believe. She is a better example of what our legislators are supposed to be instead of the corporate lapdogs many are. She is young, attractive, female, and articulate. These are things most Republicans are not. Look at Ambrose. He is most Republicans. I say more power to her.

lostinparadize

Physics, you ever heard of "book smart" but not smart enough to come in from the rain ?
That could be AOCs' problem. Engaging mouth before brain fully kicks in. Sort of like Trump.

martian2

I would add lost, that Trump is neither book smart or street smart. He was just born into wealth, never had to work hard or prove himself. That is a big reason why he is the way he is.

Cassandra2

"Meanwhile we have an incredible, endangering debt..." Gee, I wonder where that came from. It's not possible that the debt is accumulating because of massive tax cuts for the super wealthy. Naaah.

DMoney

That's never going to substantially change. It's a pipe dream.

oldhomey

The growing debt is never going to change, D? That is a pipe dream? It was shrinking in the latter stages of the Obama administration, when the economy was returning to heath. It should be sinking now, as the economy continues the growth momentum established by Obama, but Trump, like Bush II, decided to give all the gravy of the economic growth to those who needed it the least, the wealthiest ten percent. The Bush II move pulled the rug out from under the shrinking debt established by the Clinton administration. Why is it that the Democrats oversee the shrinking national debt, while the Republicans always torpedo that remedy?

DMoney

Taxing of the very wealthy at rates approaching anywhere near 70% will never happen.

DMoney

Is that how it went in Wisconsin too the past 8 years???

oldhomey

Is WHAT how it went in Wisconsin? Gosh, you are an enigma sometimes, D. You also seem unreasonably sure of your opinions with statements like there will never be an income tax approaching 70 percent. If the people will it, it will become a fact. There. How's THAT for an opinionated view? And more likely to be true than yours.

Cassandra2

So you admit that republicans will never be able to fix the debt, no matter how often they claim to have it as a top priority? If you look at the facts, the debt rises every time the republicans gain office and start looting the treasury and falls when Democrats apply some fiscal realism to the equation.

DMoney

Did that happen in WI over past 8 years?? Oldhomey this comment for you too, since you couldn't follow along when I asked the same question earlier.

oldhomey

Right. I am not quite sure how much debt was eliminated under Scott Walker, but I am sure you can bring me up to speed on that. The question is how he brought it down. We have seen the roads decay in the state, along with other infrastructure, not to mention the maintenance of wild places as he stripped the department of natural resources, all saving money on the short term while putting the state at peril for the long run.

DMoney

Don't take my word for it. I know you can research facts. Yes some sacrifices were made to live within our means. No different than any responsible household. Result is a surplus which will probably be short lived. Better get busy taxing the bejesus if the rich. We're going to need it.

oldhomey

You are absolutely right, as usual, D. I wanted a new car years ago because everybody else at work had one, and I didn't want anybody to think I was behind them on the old pay scale. So, I told my son he'd have to rely on student loans for school, and my wife had to buy a washboard for the laundry, because we weren't going out of budget for a new washer/dryer after the old ones tanked. New eyeglasses were out, as were medications with anything more than a $5 co-pay, except in my case, because I was the breadwinner, and my health was paramount. I believe firmly in taking care of myself first, like Scott Walker, and obviously I am a realist, sacrificing what needs to be sacrificed for the good of a budget. Heck, in that time of buying a new car, I actually banked a couple of thousand in savings after sacrificing so much, which I spent in Vegas to get my mind off all my terrible responsibilities.

DMoney

In what way did Walker watch out for himself first? Wasn't it a couple years ago he made the news for his own personal financial difficulties?

oldhomey

Did you see the video of Walker assuring the Janesville billionaire that Walker was intent on fulfilling the billionaire's wishes to quash the unions by divide and conquer methods? Walker was sure he was greasing his path to much higher political glory by kowtowing to the big money folks, as he further showed when he thought he was talking to a Koch brother during the teacher demonstrations at the capital and suggested he had been thinking about hiring trouble making provocateurs to join the crowd and try to start violence.

DMoney

I'm quite sure Walker was acting as a Republican/Conservative governor. You understand that the right is usually anti-unions? His right to work laws were very popular among conservatives. If that would also benefit his career path--so be it.

oldhomey

The unions were one of the few institutions that could match the kind of opposition money that billionaires and corporations marshal for right-wing politicians who will fulfill the wishes of billionaires and corporations, but not working men and women. They could not defeat the unions, so they organized politically to legislate them out of existence, and Scott Walker was their hand maiden in this exercise, exciting them so with his success in Wisconsin that he was their front runner for president early on in 2016. The rest of the country saw him for what he is, a mewling milquetoast lackey. But a dangerous precedent has be established. Now we have a lot of Democrats far to the left of me who would like to legislate billionaires out of existence. I expect ultimately they will be as successful as Scott Walker was -- leaving them as dead meat politically as he is.

DMoney

That's never going to happen. It's impossible. Pipe dream, as I originally said. Politicians are a function of wealth. I don't make those rules, I'm not celebrating them. But I understand, accept and adapt to them.

oldhomey

Well, will you be in the conservative vanguard when the union movement inevitably resurrects itself, as working people have no other way of standing up to wealth and power? I expect so, having "adapted" yourself to be in thrall and awe of great wealth. But the great American experiment was invented precisely to fight back against elitist power, and that germ is still in the body politic.

Rick Czeczok

Sounds like a bigoted man hater to me.

Cassandra2

And you, comrade, sound like another entitled chauvinist with that comment.

Cassandra2

Thanks for man-splaining it for us, Mr. Ambrose. It's nice to know that folks like you have all the answers. It's also nice to know that people like AOC are your downfall.

DMoney

Man-splaining? Sounds like more prejudice from you. And if you support AOC in any way then you must admire Trump. They are the same person inside.

Rick Czeczok

Sounds like a bigoted man hater.

DMoney

She's as prejudicial and intolerant as they come. Like something straight out of 1920's Alabama or something. What's hilarious is she does it while chirping about progressive values out of the other side of her mouth.

Cassandra2

Oh, D-bag and Comrade Zerocock, your blatherings on this forum are truly laughable.

DMoney

Your name calling, profiling, discrimination and prejudice on these forums are appalling.

capedcrusader

Baloney. And you probably hate smart women. And that's why you hate Hillary too.

DMoney

Crusader how do you know I'm not a woman?

capedcrusader

Where did I say you were a woman DMoney?

wakeup

Does no one fact check these right wing know-it-alls? Besides being incredibly partronizing, this editorial is full of misinformation. AOC advocates a very doable move from fossil fuels to renewables because climate experts tell us
we have about 12 years to cut greenhouse gas emissions or go over the tipping points that keep temperature and moisture extremes within livable limits. The costs of that dire consequence would be much higher than switching to clean energy. Similarly, her tax proposals are well within historic norms (tax rates have been much higher in the past and were at 70% when Reagan held office) and are supported by many expert economists. Not to mention the majority of Americans support both a Green New Deal and a much higher progressive tax on the very wealthy. As for the rest of this, it's one big smear job for the factually impaired. Ambrose is free to write whatever entitled fantasy stories he wants, but readers should not assume his stories are true.

capedcrusader

Thank you!

Rick Czeczok

You're welcome.

DMoney

There will never be a tax rate approaching anywhere near 70% for the very wealthy. Not arguing the merits or morality, that doesn't matter. The country is run and controlled by the 1%. They are never going to allow it. You'd have better odds of a complete gun ban, going door to door searching and seizing every firearm.

oldhomey

Wow! You certainly are in awe of great wealth, D. When it gets to be so great as it is now, concentrating so much of the wealth in so few hands, it is no longer awesome, it is reprehensible. It happened at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries, and legislation executed by the government of the people, by the people and for the people remedied that situation, breaking up companies that had accumulated too much wealth and power by monopolizing industries, and with taxes that more fairly distributed the wealth that our nation produces. It did not eliminate the ability to become wealthy beyond dreams, it simply put some sensible boundaries around how wealthy they coud be.

This will happen again. The Koch brothers, Adelson and all the other greed heads who are willing to spend billions to shape elections to their liking cannot ultimately overcome the power of a couple of hundred million voters. Given new laws, we will still have our fair share of billionaires, just as nations like Sweden and UK have, but who the hell and why the hell should anybody be able to accumulate $140 billion in personal wealth? At least people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are committed to giving their gigantic personal fortunes away to good causes.

DMoney

Mine nor your personal feelings towards wealth have anything to do with it. Any/all changes to economic regulations have led us here, haven't they? There won't be "a couple hundred million voters" either. Not unless our population doubles in size. Even if there were, roughly half would be fundamentally against these policies. Do you really think politicians have more power and influence than billionaires? Doesn't matter how mad that makes you, the fact remains.

oldhomey

Well, D, the Koch brothers pine for the vision of their father, one of the founding leaders of the John Birch Society, who wanted us to return to the free-booting days of the robber barons before the government cracked down on monopolies, trusts, child labor, unregulated work safety, unregulated pharmaceuticals, unregulated pollution. The Koch brothers want a return to those days of unregulated mayhem that serves only the very, very rich. And back in the robber baron days the rich were extraodinarily rich, perhaps even more than today's billionaires.

The government under different presidents from different parties from the 1890s for the next 30 years did a pretty notable job in clipping the wings of the very, very rich. What makes you so sure that the government is no longer able to do so? ight now I can give you the answer with two words: Donald Trump. But he won't be president forever, and all of us, including you if we are to believe you, hope not for too much longer.

DMoney

No, it didn't. You are right in that tycoons of the 1800s and first half of 1900s we're more wealthy than those of today. They were so rich that laws in the early to mid 1900s had little impact. Today, there are far more millionaires and billionaires. And their focus, before their businesses, are politics. There have been 3 democratic presidents (I think?) Since Reagan. No changes. I'd an extreme candidate like Cortez becomes a serious candidate, the money that will flow into stopping them will be astronomical. Not going to happen.

oldhomey

There are far more people today than in 1900, D, so of course there are more rich people today. But the inequality of wealth is beginning to approach the same levels today as it was at in 1900. I am not quite sure where you are coming from when you say the rich are more concentrated on politics than their businesses. Politics and the political landscape have always been in the mix for anybody running a business, but first and foremost the business has to be selling something that the public wants. If you think Ocasio-Cortez is that radical, what about the Koch Brothers and Cy Adelson, who spend money up the wazoo to suborn politicians and federal regulations to protect their business interests? Read the Dave Super column in today's Tribune.

oldhomey

I will share with you a little history, D, about great wealth in this country:

" . . . [in 1896] University of Wisconsin economist Charles B. Spahr cited its findings that the poorest 44% of Americans owned, on average, 3% of the national wealth, while the richest 1% owned more than 50%."

"This grossly inequitable distribution, which places half of America’s wealth with one person in a hundred and leaves 60 of us empty-handed or nearly, was from the beginning a principal feature of the reconstructed American national economy. In 1915 the Commission on Industrial Relations — chartered by our history’s most progressive Congress (1908-1916) with power of subpoena to investigate in detail the character and workings of the American economy — issued its Final Report summarizing three years of cross-country hearings and research; eleven thousand-page volumes of testimony and evidence appeared in 1916. Concerning the distribution of our country’s wealth it found that the poorer 65% of Americans together owned 8%, while the richest 2% owned 57%. It also observes that, equitably distributed, the national wealth more than suffices to provide a middle class standard of living for everyone."

" . . . even in the least inequitable of times (1962), the top 1% owned above 40%, the top 10% owned 77% and the bottom 60% owned 4.4%. This already stark maldistribution has deteriorated dramatically over the last 50 years; today it is worse than it has been in over a century. "

DMoney

I believe all if these facts. I'm not defending or arguing against the fact that it is grossly disproportionate. But it's not going to radically change. This 1% owns the country, literally and figuratively. It might not own the people but it owns the mechanisims we have to voice our opinions. Owns the media, the real estate, the politicians, the economy and so on. We're pawns in the game. It's never changed and never will.

oldhomey

Well, D, let us just take ONE element of your factual explanation of how we are all held hopelessly and helplessly in thrall of the super-rich. You tell us that they control the main-stream media from which we must rely on for accurate, factual information. But you tell us that the media is terribly biased against conservatives and business, a collection of socialist rabble trying to turn us into something resembling a communist state. That sure sounds like what a bunch of rich people keeping an iron grip on their private wealth would try to do, change the government so that all wealth belongs to the state. Right?

DMoney

There are many extremely rich "liberals" as well. While I don't know if they control MSNBC or whatever the left wing channel is, I'm sure they get their kicks supporting the left before retiring to their private islands aboard their yachts. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were Republicans owning left wing channels. All this partisanship must be creating enormous ratings and ad dollars.

oldhomey

You haven't been reading the lips of me and most of the other liberals on these boards, have you, D? Of course there are plenty of liberal billionaires, too. So what? The point is, we do not want them to have an out-sized voice in our national affairs by making enormous political contributions that, in reality, buy and sell politicians and corrupt our political process. Get big money out of our political system, both conservative and liberal -- and moderate, for that matter.

martian2

Well Dmoney the country doesn't have to be run by the 1%. The rich would never get away with running the country for their own personal benefit if people like you and ricky boy would wake up and stop being so scared of anyone who is not a republican. We could elect progressive leaders who would stand up for the working class. Instead we have the super rich spending super amounts of money to convince people like to you vote against your own self interest, and the best interest of the country. This anyone but Hillary, or Obama, (or whoever the democrat is), attitude that the republicans constantly use, seems to work very well on the gullible. By using fear and hate, too many just fall in line and don't think for themselves. And then you got Ambrose spewing more nonsense every week, he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the arse.

DMoney

Here's the problems: first, I've accomplished a very decent place in society with minimal assistance from others and very marginal help from any form of government, other than local. I'm not special. Middle of the middle class, family, modest house, family, etc. Average Joe. But I'm happy being left to my own devices and anything outside of my social circle impacting my life is a threat. Why would I vote for a disruptive party? Times my background by millions....many many average Americans like me. Second, today's politics are a package deal. You have to go extreme one way or the other. Give me a Democrat candidate like Clinton, and I'll strongly consider. There is no center anymore, and that's what people like me want. So I take the party that will change the least and protect the status quo.

DMoney

BILL Clinton... not Hillary.

martian2

wow the fear factor has a total grip on you Dmoney. Anything outside your social circle is a threat? Not sure what that means. And you don't like extremists, well you got one now in the white house. I guess if its a far right extremist you are ok with that. Again you brag about your life and how your "rugged individualism" has brought you to where you are now, and to heck with anyone else who is not as "smart" as me. Truth is you benefited from a generous society that gave you a good education, safe transportation, medicines, food, and a safe and free country to live in. You didn't do these things all on your own. And no one is going to take that away from you. Except maybe the right wingers if they got their way, no social security or medicare or even public education as we know it. All in the name of bigger tax breaks for the wealthiest. And the debt that is going to be left to your children is staggering. Now who is the threat to your social circle?

oldhomey

Well put, martian, in your 8:48am post.

Cassandra2

It's interesting to note that the D-bag has completely capitulated to the ultra-wealthy and sees no future for true democracy. That's a sad commentary on his politics.

DMoney

No response for you

Rick Czeczok

I think this sounds like another name changer or a second name for this board. Maybe Martian (the old Kingman who was kicked off of here). Socialist will do anything to get their message out there. AOC is a nutcase, pretty, but non the less nuts. Let's talk about her statements on 70% taxes, free medical, free collage. In order to pay for everything this nut says we need all of us will have to pay 70% tax, not just the rich.

oldhomey

More proof of the remarkable perspicacity of Ricky, our resident ignoramus who has nothing to say, extreme difficulty in identifying issues that he wants to comment on and has even less ability to express what he thinks he is saying.

Cassandra2

Comrade Zerocock is showing his chauvinistic sexism, once again. He's rapidly battling for Chippy's old title of Pathetic Loser.

capedcrusader

Don't forget "A Veteran".

DMoney

Incredible how a comment disagreeing with a politicians views makes the person "sexist" by default. Not long ago you used to have to do or say something to receive any type of definition. Now it just takes someone to say something. In that case, Cassandra is a platypus. I said it, therefore it is true.

lostinparadize

How is she going to get China, India, the entire continent of Africa, and the rest of Asia to go along with the " new green plan" ? Or is only North America going down the tubes in 12 years?

oldhomey

Ahem. Perhaps you weren't aware, seeing as how you seem perpetually lost, lost, but China has been doing more to go green than we have. India not so much. Africa has very little in the way of manufacturing industries, so it is not a major polluter, thus far. Hope I have given you a couple of directional markers to help you get your footing in this discussion, lost.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.