AOC: The true face of the DNC

@wallstreetcappers

 Our nature has not changed, we are no different than from 50 or 100 years ago the only difference is fear has declined the freedom of expression has expanded and people are TRYING to find themselves in different ways than in the past...this does not mean a social decline. I would say the true reason for social decline is the lack of involvement of parents in the lives of their children and families. We are too obsessed with self interest and buying spending and self gratification. The selfish nature of society and the way we have been programed to buy and be superior to others leads to more selfish behavior. People are responsible based on their selfish nature and that has not changed but the velocity of selfishness has.

Correct.  That is exactly my point.  At least you admit here that there is a decline.

Now take the morals and behavior aspect of it and apply it.  If the parents are NOT raising the kids -- why not?  Why are the schools doing it?  Why is social media doing it?  Why are the Trans folks allowed to do it?

Why is there not a father in the home?  Why has the mother not chosen a better guy?  

Why are you advocating so hard for allowance of people wanting self-gratification and being selfish -- when you acknowledge that it is part of the problem.

People need to be more concerned with raising their families right and making sure society has good morals and behavior.  

It simply is not good of people just to go and do whatever they want to do because it makes them happy and are selfish.

Yes.  But it is another example of 'acceptance'.  It is now just accepted that there will be more theft.

@StumpTownStu

Yes,  Been there many times, of course.

I always say SF has some of the best restaurants as well.

I was being sarcastic when I told them that.  Because Vegas has become its own dumpster fire.

But I have not been to the Raiders new stadium in Vegas yet.  So, maybe.

@Raiders22

 People can correlate any two things and form a narrative so people can think that religion determines better social behavior and that religion teaches certain principals and that benefits society...well I completely disagree with that. There are so many examples over time of the exact opposite that religion is oppressive, discriminatory, fear based control based and divisive to the point of wars and deaths of millions. The OT was a great example of how horrid religion is all the wars and killings under the guise of religious superiority then you have the thousands of years and numerous wars since that show mankind uses religion as a scheme to control and kill and destroy each other.

Moral and socially sensitive precepts are inherent to all, they are not taught and unless someone has a mental deficiency we all know mostly the right and the wrong with how to treat each other EVEN WHEN we have a disagreement. Nobody needs religion or the TEN commandments or some pulpit waving lunatic to make good choices. People are lazy and selfish and have no sense of self value and worth because they seek self gratification and want to force their views on others and make others do what they feel is right. I would probably suggest that a plethora of grounded philosophy that is non-sectarian has more value than the garbage Christianity we see now as most religions are money power and control grabbers to try and guilt you and your eternal salvation to take control of your life now and today.

Its funny most next level examples of being, those you might identify as on the second or third level of hierarchy have little to do with Christianity or any organized religion per say. Religion and guilt are a crutch and a tool used to take from those stupid enough to fall prey to it.

One side note, this decriminalization problem has more to do with the system being overwhelmed and the public not wanting to fund the apprehension, prosecution and housing of criminals and the lack of benefit that comes from prisons than a shift in social decline. We do not fund the police, our court systems are massively backlogged our prisons overcrowded and the costs are more than municipalities can bear and people do not want to pay more taxes for these purposes, THAT is why these changes are being made...its about cost and time and resources.

I don't think it's "accepted". I just think police are choosing not to police such things and the community is stuck. I'm all for vigilante justice.

@wallstreetcappers

 Moral and socially sensitive precepts are inherent to all, they are not taught and unless someone has a mental deficiency

For example?

@wallstreetcappers

 Its funny most next level examples of being, those you might identify as on the second or third level of hierarchy have little to do with Christianity or any organized religion per say. Religion and guilt are a crutch and a tool used to take from those stupid enough to fall prey to it.

That is why I say you should remove Religion from it, you seem too hung up on it.

You have to be able to demonstrate to non-religious people that say these things why what you 'feel' I not just emotional but evidence-based.

That is very hard to do -- but very easy to conversely do.

@wallstreetcappers

 One side note, this decriminalization problem has more to do with the system being overwhelmed and the public not wanting to fund the apprehension, prosecution and housing of criminals and the lack of benefit that comes from prisons than a shift in social decline. We do not fund the police, our court systems are massively backlogged our prisons overcrowded and the costs are more than municipalities can bear and people do not want to pay more taxes for these purposes, THAT is why these changes are being made...its about cost and time and resources.

This is incorrect.  It may be resultant.  But it is not the cause.  It for sure is not addressing the 'fixing' side of it either.

But it is not at all the problem itself.

@Raiders22

You correlate the past as better and that IS the past, the past was male dominated Christianity infused society that you feel is superior and that society is worse now. I say it was not better unless your sub group was the beneficiary and in your case it was. The family unit was not stronger back then, the family unit was controlled by a male dominated narrative and a subservient female spouse THAT was reality and if you are old enough to have lived it you know exactly that is the case. I am saying that the oppression in past society is directly correlated to a domination of Christian narrative and it really wasnt and isnt Christian at all, it is a religious male dominated narrative not what Christ taught or led by example. There are many current examples of religious based terrorism right in front of our faces, those societies are more extreme and barbaric but the underlying control theme and approach is the SAME. Religion in the UAE in Pakistan in SA is barbaric and to an extreme level vs what we experienced for the hundreds of years here but it is the SAME...the same flaws the same control the same social dominance and intolerance it is the same.

Our past was nothing to point towards and desire, we have always been as a species brutal to each other and what we see now is just another shade of the same with a few different twists but the outcome is the same.

Of course it is.  It is not even their 'choice' a lot of times.  They are flat-out directly not to.

People are accepting to learn to live with the fact that folks can push a cart into  drugstore and roll out with whatever they like with.  

People get so jaded -- they just 'accept' it.  Try that 50 years ago, or even 10 -- try it in Dubai.

Sure, vigilante will be punished for sure though.

@wallstreetcappers

 The family unit was not stronger back then,

Of course it was -- since there is not one in a lot of areas nowadays.

the family unit was controlled by a male dominated narrative and a subservient female spouse THAT was reality and if you are old enough to have lived it you know exactly that is the case.

Your use of the word 'control' and 'subservient' is misleading.  If that is how you were raised then I am sorry -- it should not have been that way.

No, it needs two loving parents working together to raise their kids.  The man used to be the sole breadwinner and seen as the head of the house and the woman was the housekeeper, etc.

You can argue why it does noted to be that way or no longer is.  But you cannot argue that it was not better for the kids and society.

But those words are a mischaracterization.  The man should not be a domineering figure by any means.

A good family unit will always be better than a free for all.  That instability most kids will not fully overcome.

@Raiders22

 Our true nature does not change in the long run its just the dynamics that change, the variables but human nature is just the same as it was...now the center of attention and control is shifting FROM religion here and FROM men and M/F dynamic into a different one...now there are same sex units there are single parent units, more people are having less kids than in the past. Lots of dynamic shifts but our human nature and our inherent behaviors have not changed. 

What has really changed is the aggressive nature of the media and corporations to forward consumption and to make excess profits, put another way GREED. You need to look no further than the price of the SPX and how it has gone a straight line up even in the face of inflation and a decrease in purchase power, a decrease in savings and an increase in debt. The market and its continual rise tells me that corps are winning the consumption and profit battle even to overcome the blaring weakness and flaws in this country. I am sure some of your GOP pals are miffed that they cannot blame Biden for a sagging stock market or sagging real estate prices and couple it with inflation for a triple whammy, the market has gone up when in the past these constraints would make it go down. We have turned into more selfish gluttonous consuming pigs and THAT is what is causing a decline in society...people are out for themselves their narratives and agendas their perspectives and pursuits and much less being concerned about others and especially those who are different. The divide is palpable and the fact the markets refuse to go down speaks volumes to who is responsible for controlling behaviors and the never ending need to consume means the family unit and society is lost, time is limited and to "pay" for our consumption it comes at the expense of time and personal resources and thus family/society.

@wallstreetcappers

Our true nature does not change in the long run its just the dynamics that change, the variables but human nature is just the same as it was...now the center of attention and control is shifting FROM religion here and FROM men and M/F dynamic into a different one...now there are same sex units there are single parent units, more people are having less kids than in the past. Lots of dynamic shifts but our human nature and our inherent behaviors have not changed. 

All of this branched off in a lot of directions.  So, I will break it up.

Yes, nature is nature.  But that does not mean ‘allowing’ bad ones to become more prevalent is natural or good.  Nor, does it mean ’suppressing’ good ones is good either.

Again, you are too keyed in on religion, and, it seems, Christianity.

Remove religion from it and re-examine it.  You do not address Muslims or even the Karmaic religions that do not allow this.  Nor the hinter areas that are non-religious.  

No way you can be self-centered enough to assume the way in the West right now is best and better than it was without evidence.  You have still not shown any — just ‘feeling’ that it is.

Yes, the concern about the fertility replacement rate declination is growing.  All developed countries are drastically down with the exception of Israel.  But I do not see how that can be interpreted as a good symptom of the ‘approval’ of bad moral behavior.

But the dynamics can change — but, that does not mean the behaviors and morals have to decline as well.  Maybe you are linking the bad behavior to the dynamic change.  But that is a stretch.  Maybe you can say the change in morals changed the dynamic just as easily.

But look at any of the research, studies and concerns of the experts in sociology, psychology, therapists that study this stuff.  They are certainly NOT coming at it from a religious viewpoint.  There is a HUGE secular concern about these things right now.

For example, you mention fewer parents, etc.

One of the prime examples of that is what women look for in a man.  Everyone knows they like taller guys, etc.  But they are generally attracted to men for 3 reasons.  

First is kindness, they want someone who is going to be nice to them and are impressed by men that are kind to their parents and that go out of their way to help people with no expected reciprocal acts.

Second, is intelligence.  Because the smarter you are the more likely you are to make good decisions and protect your family’s offspring.  Like they say the fastest way to demonstrate this is usually through humor.  Like the guy said it is often true if you can make a woman laugh, you can kiss her.

But the most important thing to women is the man’s ability to signal future resources — not even that he has to be rich now, but he has to have his act together such that he looks like he will be a decent provider.

The problem is the number of men that we are producing now that qualify like that is shrinking.  It is due to what we call the ‘high-heels effect’.  Just as women are not as drawn to men that are shorter than them — the same applies in life.

Metaphorically, women are getting taller every day.  Look at university graduation rates now, for example.  They have fewer guys that are their equal — let alone betters — to choose from.

This is a true dynamic change.

Now you can argue that the lack of that parental family unit has eroded the morals and behavior of guys more than women and the things in life that used to be emphasized are not emphasized anymore.

These things seem to be having more of a negative effect on boys and are showing up later in life.

You agreed that there is a decline in society — but you seem to put it solely at the feet of greed.

But that is a very close-lensed view of it from afar.

If you look at England, they can be seen as a leading indicator of sorts on this.  You will see the issues they are dealing with now psychologically, medically, and even litigiously.

You have to be able demonstrate that this ‘acceptance’ and ‘promotion’ of bad moral behavior is reducing bad things and making them better.

You have not done this and I contend you cannot.  Especially amongst the youth — that are the most easily influenced and affected.

For example, has it made suicide rates higher or lower?  Depression rates better or worse?  Nervousness better or worse?  Has it improved their self-confidence or worsened it?  Are the youth better able to function in society or not?

These are the ‘canaries in the coal mine’, so to speak.

The evidence is overwhelmingly on my side by all secularist experts — it is bad and getting worse.

What has really changed is the aggressive nature of the media and corporations to forward consumption and to make excess profits, put another way GREED. 

Sure.  But what does the media being aggressive have to do with a moral and social decline?

Greed is bad.  But too many folks use it a s copout.

So what if a company and person wants to make money or profit.  The whole point of owning a business is to make money and too increase profits.

We are not on a barter system where we trade things just to subsist.  We are in a capitalist society where we can profit.  As long as you are not doing it illegally or to harm others, so what?

You need to look no further than the price of the SPX and how it has gone a straight line up even in the face of inflation and a decrease in purchase power, a decrease in savings and an increase in debt. The market and its continual rise tells me that corps are winning the consumption and profit battle even to overcome the blaring weakness and flaws in this country. I am sure some of your GOP pals are miffed that they cannot blame Biden for a sagging stock market or sagging real estate prices and couple it with inflation for a triple whammy, the market has gone up when in the past these constraints would make it go down. We have turned into more selfish gluttonous consuming pigs and THAT is what is causing a decline in society...people are out for themselves their narratives and agendas their perspectives and pursuits and much less being concerned about others and especially those who are different. The divide is palpable and the fact the markets refuse to go down speaks volumes to who is responsible for controlling behaviors and the never ending need to consume means the family unit and society is lost, time is limited and to "pay" for our consumption it comes at the expense of time and personal resources and thus family/society.

I have addressed this from an Economics standpoint on here before.  But I will hit the highlights again.  The President has little to do with the stockmarket.  Certainly, lately, the EOs have more effect than before.  But you still have the knuckleheads in Congress to deal with.

I think far more the GOP would like Biden out for many other reasons than simply the stockmarket.  

If someone ONLY cared about their investment return this is the best scenario they could have.  A Democratic President and a divided Congress.  It produces the best returns:

1. Democratic president with split Congress: 13.6%

So, any other combination drops off on ROI — even a Republican President and a Republican Congress is a good bit lower.

So, people that only care about that sort of thing should be happy.

@wallstreetcappers

I get some may miss the market under Trump.  For example:

Stocks performed better under Trump, though both presidencies coincided with stronger-than-average gains—the S&P 500 index has posted an annualized gain of 10.8% since Biden took office in 2021, compared to 14.1% under Trump.

When you parse it out against GDP and truer numbers it was even better.

The real estate issue is a concern and is growing.  This is even a bigger deal if Freddie Mac gets their way on holding second mortgages.  But folks that are not planning to sell or not planning to sell and move to a cheaper state should not be overly excited.  It is not like they can find another house nearby and realize their equity.  Then the insurance will go up with the value of the real estate, etc.

So, I am not so sure that all of that is a good thing.

I have been saying there will be and should be a drawback soon.  The commercial, private real estate markets and the stock market will all need some adjustments soon.  The FED likely not dropping rates will also affect all of this, etc.

But it is far more concerning with the other issues with Biden.  I contend a lot of those are the very social concerns I am talking about with society now.  These have very little to do solely with greed.

You guys are still debating clapping dude cheeks, correct? Geez. Sometimes you have to pound some man tuchus. That's not a signifier for the fall of society.

@StumpTownStu

 My contention is it is far more than just that part of it.

Such as? Transvestites reading to school children?

back to the thread topic: AOC

this clown who has never been in politics ever was pulled out of a crowd of losers, but she did rise up from all the clown cases to get some votes

how did this Ronald McDonald clown get re-elected anyway??  The AMAZON....BIGGEST EVER home corporations in queens and it is shut down??

Has anyone here even walked her district lately?  Maybe BC has ventured into the Bronx or some parts of Queens, but I doubt it his dog or his mom has him handcuffed

She serves no purpose to the party other than she is half the age...but her views are  crap

So many people in our country are about to be butt hurt, just know that

on Monday we do arms

@soup-can

 this clown who has never been in politics ever was pulled out of a crowd of losers, but she did rise up from all the clown cases to get some votes

I get what you are saying.  I am far from a fan of her polices but can still respect and admire that she stepped up.  Not very many 28(?) year olds are into politics.  Not many people at that age are concerned enough about trying to 'fix' things to get involved -- let alone step up and actually run for office.

You only have to look at the makeup in her district to see why she could make quick in-roads against an old white guy.  He was too easy to run against.  She just had to say he never even tried to learn Spanish, did not even live there (but in suburban VA), was part of the old guard that did not really care about his constituents.  She could easily make him out to be an old guy playing out the string, so to speak.  Whereas, she could portray being young, energetic, not part of the establishment, was from the community and knew their needs.

how did this Ronald McDonald clown get re-elected anyway?? 

So, it was very easy to see how she got elected.  Because she was a first-timer running and really had nothing to lose, she could flat-out present a stark contrast between a seemingly disinterested, old white guy and herself.  She then became more savvy politically and then the re-elections became easier.

The AMAZON....BIGGEST EVER home corporations in queens and it is shut down??

She very easily made the 'corporate greed' case against them.  She countered that the 'tax breaks' etc. that Amazon would be getting were unjust and that the number of jobs and pay was not accurate.  Then she argued that none of that addressed a lot of the infrastructure needs that they had in the community that were just as important, if not more so.  

So, when you portray it as they are taking Billions of dollars (in a sense) while you need better hospitals, roads, and schools -- it was a very easy case to make.

Amazon and its political proponents did not counter her arguments hardly at all -- and certainly not well enough.  Just saying we are bringing jobs to you is not good enough.

They should have presented the case that they would be a huge benefit to the community in other ways, like helping with better schools, etc.  It is very, very easy to do this.  A lot of companies help in very many ways in their communities -- and I imagine Amazon does in other places.

But when Amazon simply said, 'oh well, we will go somewhere else' -- it more or less justified exactly what she was saying.

She serves no purpose to the party other than she is half the age...but her views are crap

While I agree with this, it does not matter.  The sentiment in her district is what matters.  She has gotten very good, politically, about 'pushing' or 'standing' for what she wants or thinks is best.

For example, she gave a couple of very good, long  interviews about why she voted against the Infrastructure Bill.  Absolutely she knew the Bill did not need her vote to pass -- so she could do it.  Then she made her case about why she did not vote for it.

She has a purpose to the party at that far-fringe for sure.  She has generated support from a younger crowd that the Republicans have done a very poor job or persuading on views and policies.  She has brought youth and energy to Congress.

You may disagree completely about her views and policies -- but I think she is getting savvier, politically, all the time.

AT LEAST AOC HAS a nice face unlike that BUTCH BODY MARJORIE

TAYLOR GREENE

@Brooklyncapper

 I agree with you on that point but if these two, AOC and horse face wanted to have a lipstick party at your place you would be a fool to send either one home

its like riding a mo-ped its fun till your boys find out out your ride

@Raiders22

 she completely messed that Amazon hq up.  I get what you say about the jobs, but when states like NY give these ten year tax credits to the corps it is way more than jobs.  Those people need to sleep so apartments or house sales jump.  More money in the local economy which in the city means mom and pop bodegas get their own in an area of decline.  Like when someone opens a food truck in a food desert town.  There is only an upside, it also draws in other smaller companys to the general area which boosts everywhere around it, the job pool of expendable people that amazon likes to exploit is endless around NYC.  And lets just say in 10years when the tax credits expire, those communities are thriving at that point and the incentives to stay go way up.  On that point she Fu-d up