Is @AOC going to jail?

Is @AOC going to jail?


  • Total voters
    106

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#57
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
Nope, I just dont trust sources that lie. Plus the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so they are essentially a more sensationalized Fox News.
The story is true, you can call the FEC if you don't believe it.

Now if there is wrongdoing or not thats a different story. No one now knows how wrong or illegal it is what happened.

But regardless of the source there was an FEC filling and these different PACS and LLC's do exist and money was moved around.
 
Sep 24, 2014
124
102
295
Nope
#61
I could be wrong, but I can't find a single politician being given a jail sentence for campaign finance issues in the US. So, just like Trump, AOC will most likely just get a slap on the wrist and fine because no politician wants to create the precedent of sending politicians to jail even if they are on the opposite partys.

And every news outlet is biased in some way and full of willful and benign human error... that's why they all hide apologies and corrections as an afterthought to avoid responsibility for their jobs. (Just because its hyperbole doesn't make it untrue)
 
Feb 19, 2018
187
89
170
#62
I hate to break it to you. Are you sitting down? All of those above sources have lied. Now what are you going to do?
Aww, poor guy. its such a shame you dont know how to be properly critical of the media. You just throw on a blanket "the media lies" when you cant separate fact from fiction.
What sources do you read from so that I can find more truthful news?
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2018
509
788
230
#63
I could be wrong, but I can't find a single politician being given a jail sentence for campaign finance issues in the US. So, just like Trump, AOC will most likely just get a slap on the wrist and fine because no politician wants to create the precedent of sending politicians to jail even if they are on the opposite partys.

And every news outlet is biased in some way and full of willful and benign human error... that's why they all hide apologies and corrections as an afterthought to avoid responsibility for their jobs. (Just because its hyperbole doesn't make it untrue)
That's exactly it. I think because the media and anti-Trump people have put such high and unprecedented expectations on the Mueller investigation (impeachment and going to jail, having) that Trump people are responding in kind towards AOC. Nothing is going to happen to either of them. Politicians have gotten away with actual murder, so something like a campaign finance violation just part of running an effective win at all costs campaign.
 
Aug 30, 2018
509
788
230
#64
Aww, poor guy. its such a shame you dont know how to be properly critical of the media. You just throw on a blanket "the media lies" when you cant separate fact from fiction.
What sources do you read from so that I can find more truthful news?
Take your meds before you debate online, kiddos.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,517
2,906
240
#67
Aww, poor guy. its such a shame you dont know how to be properly critical of the media. You just throw on a blanket "the media lies" when you cant separate fact from fiction.
What sources do you read from so that I can find more truthful news?
So you're just going to ignore the fact that he is right? All of those sources you've listed have a history of lying?
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,495
1,034
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#71
AOC isn't, but Trump is, hopefully discrediting the entire rotten party supporting him. Followed by a major shift to the left in the US, one thats been LONG overdue.
I've been pro-Bernie ever since 2015, so I can at least agree with the latter (with the probable exception that I emphasize compromise/bipartisanship), but out of curiosity, do you think the Republican party was better before or after Trump?
 
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#72
I've been pro-Bernie ever since 2015, so I can at least agree with the latter (with the probable exception that I emphasize compromise/bipartisanship), but out of curiosity, do you think the Republican party was better before or after Trump?
Hm, the same, I'd say.
Trump is more or less just the logical conclusion of escalating Republican rhetoric and their embrace of anti-intellectualism, populism and nationalism.

As a party they represented corporate interest while tricking constitutionally overrepresented rural low info voters into voting for them by focussing on a few hot topics, usually connected to religion or other dumb shit.
For decades they have been nothing but a destructive and backwards force and now that has reached a boiling point with Trump in office.

Hopefully he will take the entire party down with him and the US shifts to left, at least to the level Europe is at, hopefully even to the level of northern Europe.


I don't have particular sympathies for AOC or Bernie. They don't know shit about sustainable leftist policies, but I consider them first steps.
 
Sep 24, 2014
124
102
295
Nope
#73
Why should I trust your news sources over mine?
Hope I don't offend by jumping in here. As a neutral combined with the lack of neutral reporting, I find this statement ironically representative of the argument as a whole from both sides. Facts have no sides and both sides of the news are equally as bad and partisan but no ones calls it out... both just keep playing my side vs theirs and wonder why neither will compromise.
 
Likes: matt404au
Feb 19, 2018
187
89
170
#74
Hope I don't offend by jumping in here. As a neutral combined with the lack of neutral reporting, I find this statement ironically representative of the argument as a whole from both sides. Facts have no sides and both sides of the news are equally as bad and partisan but no ones calls it out... both just keep playing my side vs theirs and wonder why neither will compromise.
I mean, our country is more divided than ever before. So it's no wonder why we question sources and who we perceive to lie. I try to read more neutral and highly factual reporting. Obviously I'm more biased towards the left since I read Wapo. But NPR, AP, and the Economist are probably some of the most trust worthy new sources out there aside from local news papers. It doesnt mean there arent criticisms regarding their reporting, but that helps keep them in check.
I mainly listen to WaPo's Podcast Post Reports (I find it's far less biased than their articles) and NPR's morning news. They are so neutral its incredibly clear they have a high level of reporting standards. I'm not going to easily accept a blanket statement "they all lie" and go read something like The Sun or CNN to "balance my perspective".
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,892
830
Australia
#75
I’m not finding information on this “scandal” from any actual reputable sources. You’re all just getting mad from some lies conservative news outlets are spreading in their circle. I’m talking about reputable sources like AP, BBC, The Economist and NPR.

So yeah, I stand by my statement.
How do you know they’re lies?

What qualifies your list of sources as more credible than someone else’s?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,503
974
480
#79
Phew, I was in withdraw due to lack of a AOC from Kain today, but the devil came and provided me relief.

I realize the above sentence doesn't sound good when read aloud.
 
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#88
What planet are you living on? How can you say with a straight face that the US has not already undergone a major shift to the left?
Because it hasn't. The US has for the past several decades consistently shifted further to the right and has by now reached far right territory.
In the 1950s the US and Europe were actually pretty comparable on a left-right spectrum. But while Europe has remained pretty much in position, the US has moved way to the right.
While urban voters in the US have become more liberal, much of the rural population has moved to the right following populists. And the US constitution grants a relatively massive degree of overrepresentation to rural voters through the voting system. Bottom line is that rural votes have much more weight than urban votes. In addition to that certain (statistically more liberal) parts of the voting population have been systematically been kept from voting.
So basically the party system moved to the right, even though the voting population moved to the left.
And I think Trump is the one who will crash this status quo and as a result the system self-regulates in form of a massive shift to the left to a level thats in line with the average voter.

But even after that massive shift the US will still be to the right of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,892
830
Australia
#89
Because it hasn't. The US has for the past several decades consistently shifted further to the right and has by now reached far right territory.
In the 1950s the US and Europe were actually pretty comparable on a left-right spectrum. But while Europe has remained pretty much in position, the US has moved way to the right.
While urban voters in the US have become more liberal, much of the rural population has moved to the right following populists. And the US constitution grants a relatively massive degree of overrepresentation to rural voters through the voting system. Bottom line is that rural votes have much more weight than urban votes. In addition to that certain (statistically more liberal) parts of the voting population have been systematically been kept from voting.
So basically the party system moved to the right, even though the voting population moved to the left.
And I think Trump is the one who will crash this status quo and as a result the system self-regulates in form of a massive shift to the left to a level thats in line with the average voter.

But even after that massive shift the US will still be to the right of Europe.
Yet another popular vote argument. It’s the United States of America. Take away the Electoral College and you will have the Divided People of the Former United States of America. The Electoral College is the last barrier preventing a tyrannical majority from oppressing a helpless minority — it is quite literally ensuring diversity of thought and culture at the federal level. You and others like you who are advocating for the abolishment of the Electoral College process in favour of a popular vote are being sore losers. You wouldn’t be complaining if it had worked in your favour.

And your assertion that the US hasn’t undergone a cultural shift to the left and is in fact far right is so absurd and ignorant it doesn’t warrant further comment. Open your damn eyes.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#90
Yet another popular vote argument.
Representative democracy. One person, one vote. Is that controversial?

It’s the United States of America. Take away the Electoral College and you will have the Divided People of the Former United States of America.
You are already divided, because an uninformed minority is pulling the country in a dangerous direction.


The Electoral College is the last barrier preventing a tyrannical majority from oppressing a helpless minority
There are like 25 countries who have come up with better ways to protect minorities within the context of a democratic system. But the US somehow refuses to improve its hundreds of years old system thats causing massive problem because it wasn't designed for the challenges of today.
Thats what happens when you don't think about this stuff objectively and rationally but rather just arbitrary attribute value to a system because it's how it was always done. This is ignorance and stupidity.


— it is quite literally ensuring diversity of thought and culture at the federal level. You and others like you who are advocating for the abolishment of the Electoral College process in favour of a popular vote are being sore losers. You wouldn’t be complaining if it had worked in your favour.
I am not advocating for a popular vote, I would specifically advocate for mixed-member-proportional system within a federal context. Add a 5% threshold and you're golden.
This would lead to a multi-party system to better represent diversity of opinion in the electorate, it would increase state rights in some areas where it makes sense and decrease states right in areas where unified national action makes more sense. And most importantly it would end the polarized nature of the US political system and force parties to work together, find consensus and form coalition governments(because its unlikely that a single party gets an absolute majority in a multiparty system).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

And your assertion that the US hasn’t undergone a cultural shift to the left and is in fact far right is so absurd and ignorant it doesn’t warrant further comment. Open your damn eyes.
You don't have universal healthcare, you don't have free colleges, religious fundamentalists are a regular occurrence in your house and senate, you're highly nationalist, half of your politicians reject basic science on issues like climate change.
If thats not far right I don't know what is.
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,892
830
Australia
#91
Representative democracy. One person, one vote. Is that controversial?


You are already divided, because an uninformed minority is pulling the country in a dangerous direction.



There are like 25 countries who have come up with better ways to protect minorities within the context of a democratic system. But the US somehow refuses to improve its hundreds of years old system thats causing massive problem because it wasn't designed for the challenges of today.
Thats what happens when you don't think about this stuff objectively and rationally but rather just arbitrary attribute value to a system because it's how it was always done. This is ignorance and stupidity.



I am not advocating for a popular vote, I would specifically advocate for mixed-member-proportional system within a federal context. Add a 5% threshold and you're golden.
This would lead to a multi-party system to better represent diversity of opinion in the electorate, it would increase state rights in some areas where it makes sense and decrease states right in areas where unified national action makes more sense. And most importantly it would end the polarized nature of the US political system and force parties to work together, find consensus and form coalition governments(because its unlikely that a single party gets an absolute majority in a multiparty system).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation


You don't have universal healthcare, you don't have free colleges, religious fundamentalists are a regular occurrence in your house and senate, you're highly nationalist, half of your politicians reject basic science on issues like climate change.
If thats not far right I don't know what is.
You’re just a garden variety smug modern leftist and you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re describing direct democracy, not representative democracy. If you’re going to label half the US as uninformed, you’d better get your own house in order first.
 
Likes: rockbottom12
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,892
830
Australia
#92
@1.21Gigawatts I just remembered that you were the one calling us incels and pushing intersectional feminism in the streamer mistreating his wife thread last year. Whatever response you’re typing up, save it. I’ve learned to stop wasting time on brainwashed intersectionalist ideologues.
 
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#93
You’re just a garden variety smug modern leftist
I'm not even a leftist. I am pretty much dead center by European standards.

and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I'm a political scientist. At least when it comes to this topic, I know what I am talking about.

You’re describing direct democracy, not representative democracy.
The system I described has nothing to do with direct democracy. In a MMP-system people neither vote for candidates for higher office directly, nor do they vote on issues directly. They vote for parties and they vote for local representatives.
This is, per definition, is the opposite of direct democracy.

If you’re going to label half the US as uninformed, you’d better get your own house in order first.
[/QUOTE]
What other explanation could there be? People vote against their own interests and against scientific consensus. And all it takes is a bunch of populists with shallow messaging revolving around constructed concepts of national, religious and cultural identity.
If the US was in a massive crisis I would understand that people fall for them out of desperation, but thats not the case in the US. Instead it is a dangerous mix of hubris and ignorance.


@1.21Gigawatts I just remembered that you were the one calling us incels and pushing intersectional feminism in the streamer mistreating his wife thread last year. Whatever response you’re typing up, save it. I’ve learned to stop wasting time on brainwashed intersectionalist ideologues.
It's always the same on here. I write arguments and they are met with generalizations or just walls of bullshit.
People here rarely actually argue, which is actually typically for the current state of US politics, were people have their bubble where there is no need defend a position. But at the same time they are confrontational outside their bubble, but all they got is a bunch of preset arguments from within their bubble and if someone disagrees they are incapable of further backing up their point and just resort to flaming. Like you did now.
 
Sep 24, 2014
124
102
295
Nope
#94
It's always the same on here. I write arguments and they are met with generalizations or just walls of bullshit.
People here rarely actually argue, which is actually typically for the current state of US politics, were people have their bubble where there is no need defend a position. But at the same time they are confrontational outside their bubble, but all they got is a bunch of preset arguments from within their bubble and if someone disagrees they are incapable of further backing up their point and just resort to flaming. Like you did now.
I can appreciate the well presented arguments you provide and I don't want to step on toes but if it's really answers to this question you seek and not just blowing hot smoke up your own arse, the fallacy in your particular argument that can apply to modern politics as well is that people have seem to forgotten the difference between perspective and fact. Everything you present is from a leftist perspective which is fine, but it doesn't make it factually true. And yes it's a fact we all have perspectives, but again that doesn't make your perspective fact, it only makes it your own reality. Passing off your perspective as fact only serves to do exactly what you are claiming of the other side, to ensnare you in your own righteously "correct" bubble blinded by your own perspective (both sides of course, not you solely), and it further drives compromise and reasonable discourse away.
 
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#95
I can appreciate the well presented arguments you provide and I don't want to step on toes but if it's really answers to this question you seek and not just blowing hot smoke up your own arse, the fallacy in your particular argument that can apply to modern politics as well is that people have seem to forgotten the difference between perspective and fact. Everything you present is from a leftist perspective which is fine, but it doesn't make it factually true. And yes it's a fact we all have perspectives, but again that doesn't make your perspective fact, it only makes it your own reality. Passing off your perspective as fact only serves to do exactly what you are claiming of the other side, to ensnare you in your own righteously "correct" bubble blinded by your own perspective (both sides of course, not you solely), and it further drives compromise and reasonable discourse away.
I wouldn't call my perspective leftist. What I argued for in this thread would be a rather centrist and conservative position, from a European perspective.
Would you mind naming a few claims from my posts that show a leftist perspective and no factual basis?

Because the way I see this is an assumption by you based on your American right wing perspective, where even mainstream Democrats are already considered left wing, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with leftist ideology.

Regardless of perspective, Trump and his positions are indefensible for any rational person.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
240
#96
It's always the same on here. I write arguments and they are met with generalizations or just walls of bullshit.
People here rarely actually argue, which is actually typically for the current state of US politics, were people have their bubble where there is no need defend a position. But at the same time they are confrontational outside their bubble, but all they got is a bunch of preset arguments from within their bubble and if someone disagrees they are incapable of further backing up their point and just resort to flaming. Like you did now.
Hey look a wall of generalizations that someone could consider bullshit. See how this works?
 
Likes: rockbottom12
Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
240
#97
I wouldn't call my perspective leftist. What I argued for in this thread would be a rather centrist and conservative position, from a European perspective.
Would you mind naming a few claims from my posts that show a leftist perspective and no factual basis?

Because the way I see this is an assumption by you based on your American right wing perspective, where even mainstream Democrats are already considered left wing, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with leftist ideology.

Regardless of perspective, Trump and his positions are indefensible for any rational person.
Nice soap box you got there. Care to put forth some facts?
 
Likes: rockbottom12
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
#98
Hey look a wall of generalizations that someone could consider bullshit. See how this works?
It only works when you ignore everything else I wrote in here so far...
Like this: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/is-aoc-going-to-jail.1473171/page-2#post-253843086


Nice soap box you got there. Care to put forth some facts?
Trump is wrong about climate change. He rejects basic science.
Trump lies all the time.
Trump rejects US post WW2 foreign policy principles without even considering the consequences or explaining how and why an alternative approach would be better.
Trump drove the deficit up massively because he wanted to make tax gifts to rich people and corporations who in turn put that money into stock buy-backs. Effectively hundreds of billions of dollars were burned, or rather funnels from the public to private benefactors. This move was sold to the electorate through simple lies. Lies everyone could have seen through, but didn't because of blind faith in Trump.
Trump doesn't understand the labor market and acts like immigration and outsourcing are job killers, when its actually automation and insufficient education. As a result of this wrong understanding of the problem, his proposed solutions(curbing immigration and setting up tariffs) do not work at all. And these are also things to easy see through, but Trump just cites the same jobs numbers he called "fake" during the Obama years, job numbers which show no change between the Obama term and the Trump term, yet Trump uses them as proof for the success of his policies.

Everyone with half a working brain cell should be able to see through this bullshit.


I can already see it coming, in a few years no one will admit to having supported Trump.
 
Sep 24, 2014
124
102
295
Nope
#99
Would you mind naming a few claims from my posts that show a leftist perspective and no factual basis?
Most all of it is an opinion demonstrating perspective. And for clarification, I never stated it's has no factual basis, but rather that an opinion/perspective is not fact. For instance; the fact you vehemently disagree with Trumps policies and your conclusion to various statistics find them reprehensible is your opinion, and anyone whom likes his policies reprehensible is again your opinion, yet you present it as if it is a universal fact that Trump is wrong and his supporters reprehensible. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the content of your statement, just pointing out is is an opinion based on your perspective and not a universal fact true in the natural world everyone can experience. Becouse you really emotionally feel it to be morally right, doesnt make it a true fact no matter how much you feel it, and the same goes for Trump supporters blindly following. If you still can't see the difference, I'm sorry I cannot find the proper way to communicate what is an obvious and glaring issue in most every politics thread.
 
Last edited:
Likes: rockbottom12
Nov 24, 2012
8,236
69
450
munich
Most all of it is an opinion demonstrating perspective. And for clarification, I never stated it's has no factual basis, but rather that an opinion/perspective is not fact. For instance; the fact you vehemently disagree with Trumps policies and your conclusion to various statistics find them reprehensible is your opinion
I never just said I disagree with Trumps policies.
I always explained why I disagree with them and what they lead to and why thats bad.
And thats what I am asking you about. In which instances was this just based on perspective.
And don't tell me that whether or not wasting billions of tax payer money on tax breaks for corporation and the rich who in turn privatize this additional revenue is a bad thing depends on perspective.
Unless you are a billionaire this shit is bad for you.

, and anyone whom likes his policies reprehensible is again your opinion,
I called people uninformed, not reprehensible.
My assumption is that if they were properly informed they would never hold these positions because they are absolutely not in their rational self interest.

yet you present it as if it is a universal fact that Trump is wrong
In most instances, thats the case.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the content of your statement, just pointing out is is an opinion based on your perspective
But it's not based on perspective but on facts.
That Trumps stance on climate change flies in the face of scientific conclusions is a fact.
That Trump tax breaks don't do shit for working American and mostly benefit rich people and corporations and show now trickle down effect, is also a fact.
Thats Trump rejection of the post WW2 world order is not thought through at all and extremely dangerous is also a fact.


Becouse you really emotionally feel it to be morally right, doesnt make it a true fact no matter how much you feel it, and the same goes for Trump supporters blindly following. If you still can't see the difference, I'm sorry I cannot find the proper way to communicate what is an obvious and glaring issue in most every politics thread.
Not once have I made a moral argument here.
You still haven't cited a single one of my arguments that shows the type of things you allege.