Ocasio-Cortez Currently Backs Pelosi, ‘Most Progressive Candidate,’ For Speaker

[PaladinSolo]

Yeah, the only time i've had a years salary was just recently after selling and buying a new house before i started dumping it into buying windows, roof, and bathroom renovations, i'll be happy to have 7k left when thats all done, lol.

[RedSoxFan9]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Because of Twitter? God help us all...

 

She’s more likely to come off as genuine and not as a swamp monster.  It’s very easy to dislike someone like Clinton who can talk about supporting labor but also is secretive about her speeches at big banks. Or claim to care about human rights and then accept donations from Persian gulf tyrants.

 

AOC’s tweets do show that she can put up a fight and is not a hapless nerd like Warren

[CitizenVectron]

I consider myself lucky because I have about $8k in emergency savings (also building a wedding savings account at about $500/mo), and around $70k in my retirement fund so far (age 34). However, I only am in this position because of a few things:

 

1) Not having to pay or save for medical necessities

2) Having a strong network in my life due to my large extended family

3) Help in paying for school from my mom

 

Because of these three key things I've been able to get decent jobs right out of highschool, go back to school to change careers at age 30, and now be able to put away between $500-$1,000/mo in savings for retirement and my wedding. I would guess that I am in the top 10% of people my age in terms of savings and planning. However, I also do not own a home, I rent a condo with my fiance ($700 each/mo).

[PaladinSolo]

She also has a massive advantage over those women, shes not as old as dirt.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

She also has a massive advantage over those women, shes not as old as dirt.

 

And she does come off better than Hillary did when she was younger. I just hope AOC doesn't do something weird like change her accent. It's weird to watch this in 1992:

 

 

And then this in 1993:

 

 

 

It's like, "Why'd your voice change so quickly?"

[skillzdadirecta]

You guys think that her youth and Twitter skillz are gonna be able to stave off what the conservative right has in store for her? really???  

 

Dear god in heaven we are fucked.

 

Back on topic: a number of other Pelosi detractors are now on board... so take that for what it's worth.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You guys think that her youth and Twitter skillz are gonna be able to stave off what the conservative right has in store for her? really???  

I'm not sure if that really is an issue as she was elected in a pure Blue district and she's years away (if ever) from seeking a higher office where such attacks would actually matter.

[RedSoxFan9]

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You guys think that her youth and Twitter skillz are gonna be able to stave off what the conservative right has in store for her? really???  

 

Dear god in heaven we are fucked.

 

Back on topic: a number of other Pelosi detractors are now on board... so take that for what it's worth.

 

I said she is a genuine about her political beliefs and her policies are popular with most people. That’s not true about most conservative targets.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'm not sure if that really is an issue as she was elected in a pure Blue district and she's years away (if ever) from seeking a higher office where such attacks would actually matter.

 

My point is about making her a boogie man and tainting her the same way they've tainted every progressive woman on the left for the last 30 years. I just got finished watching a Republican operative on the news say that while Pelosi is is probably the best speaker on both sides of the isle they've ever seen, she's also a very useful fundraising tool because they've defined her to their supporters and to the nation at large. This is what they do and they are very good at it and folks STILL haven't caught on to it. That's my point... Like I said, Harris and Ocasio Cortez are next and folks think that it's gonna be different for her because of her sick Twitter game? 

 

1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I said she is a genuine about her political beliefs and her policies are popular with most people. That’s not true about most conservative targets.

 

Because the conservatives who made them targets have repeatedly told you so.  They are gonna do the same to her and are already starting as evidenced by them questioning her Bronx roots. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. I like her and I hope she's able to overcome this stuff... but given the history of women "stepping out of their place" in this country and how the country reacts, I'm not optimistic.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oh, they started that even before she was elected.

[RedSoxFan9]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Because the conservatives who made them targets have repeatedly told you so.

 

Come on.  You don’t think there is a left critique of Clinton or Pelosi? 

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Come on.  You don’t think there is a left critique of Clinton or Pelosi? 

 

Sure I do... as I think there will be a left critique of Ocasio Cortez and Kamala Harris. I just think those critiques are amplified through a conservative/misogynist prism that comes into play when women reach a certain level of power in this country. It's starting to happen to Warren, and these two will get it too and the country will fall for it as usual.

Let me ask YOU a question, why isn't anyone challenging Chuck Shumer for leadership? Why isn't HIS name in damn near every oppo ad and fundraising email the right comes up with? There's a strategy to this stuff and the electorate (including some on the left) fall for it every time. To Cortez' credit, she saw it in this leadership challenge to Pelosi and didn't fall for it, she's definitely a smart one. I just hope her supporters are as "woke" as she is. I doubt it though.

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Oh, they started that even before she was elected.

 

and the higher her profile, the more you'll hear it.

[RedSoxFan9]

19 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Sure I do... as I think there will be a left critique of Ocasio Cortez and Kamala Harris. I just think those critiques are amplified through a conservative/misogynist prism that comes into play when women reach a certain level of power in this country. 

 

I don’t really know what you are trying to say here.  The left will criticize Harris because she’s career prosecutor.  Conservatives will attack her because she’s a Democrat and a WOC.  These aren’t similar at all.

 

I assume Schumer didn’t get challenged because the senate is trash and always will be trash (and it’s composition didn’t really change much in the midterms).  Anyways here’s some fun Schumer articles

 

https://theweek.com/articles/807860/chuck-schumer-feckless-hack

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/chuck-schumer-caved-to-facebook-and-donald-trump-he-shouldnt-lead-senate-democrats/

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

My point is about making her a boogie man and tainting her the same way they've tainted every progressive woman on the left for the last 30 years. I just got finished watching a Republican operative on the news say that while Pelosi is is probably the best speaker on both sides of the isle they've ever seen, she's also a very useful fundraising tool because they've defined her to their supporters and to the nation at large. This is what they do and they are very good at it and folks STILL haven't caught on to it. That's my point... Like I said, Harris and Ocasio Cortez are next and folks think that it's gonna be different for her because of her sick Twitter game? 

 

 

Because the conservatives who made them targets have repeatedly told you so.  They are gonna do the same to her and are already starting as evidenced by them questioning her Bronx roots. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. I like her and I hope she's able to overcome this stuff... but given the history of women "stepping out of their place" in this country and how the country reacts, I'm not optimistic.

I don't think this is a valid strategy going forward anymore.  Exit polls for this election have women as the majority of voters at ~52%, and voting dem by ~59%, men however voted GOP ~51%, probably because of this strategy you're talking about right here.

[skillzdadirecta]

25 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I don't think this is a valid strategy going forward anymore.

 

We'll see... they did lose the house trying to make Pelosi the boogey woman on the left so maybe you're right. We'll see. My point is they will definitely try and I hope this generation of the electorate is smart enough to see it for what it is.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I guess I'm doing okay. I have roughly a year's salary in my retirement accounts, $6k in emergency savings, and I own a home that should be paid off in about 5.5 years. And I'm 31.

[Anathema-]

I can own people online, maybe I should run for Congress. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

We'll see... they did lose the house trying to make Pelosi the boogey woman on the left so maybe you're right. We'll see. My point is they will definitely try and I hope this generation of the electorate is smart enough to see it for what it is.

I don't think the increasingly more diverse and educated (for) electorate will give as much of a shit about what the party of rich old white men will have to say about women of color.

[skillzdadirecta]

6 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I don't think the increasingly more diverse and educated (for) electorate will give as much of a shit about what the party of rich old white men will have to say about women of color.

I hope you're right... I just feel like folks were saying this same shit 70 years ago. White people need to fully acknowledge systemic racism and misogyny and the instinctive patriarchal mindset that is ingrained in this country's DNA in order to fix it and most won't or can't despite how progressive they think they are. It's happened before,  twice  by my count .

[Chairslinger]

It's a testament to the failure of almost 40 years of trickle down economics how foreign those financial benchmarks sound to anyone under....well....40.

 

To most of us, you might as well be saying it would be financially prudent to have a gold plated yacht saved back for retirement.

[Guest]

Many more people could hit those numbers if they changed their life styles. But we have been conditioned into being good little consumers who spend spend spend. Delayed gratification isn’t a thing.

[Chris-]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Many more people could hit those numbers if they changed their life styles. But we have been conditioned into being good little consumers who spend spend spend. Delayed gratification isn’t a thing.

 

I agree. For example, why spend all that money at the concession stand when you can just bring your own snacks to the theater?

[sexy_shapiro]

3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I agree. For example, why spend all that money at the concession stand when you can just bring your own snacks to the theater?

 

Or better, why even go at all? Redbox that shit in three months.

[Nokra]

15 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

Or better, why even go at all? Redbox that shit in three months.

 

Why pay for Redbox? Get a piece of paper and a pencil and write your own damn stories! 

 

 

 

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

While I think a chunk of the population lives above their means, I also think that a greater % of young people today have no ability to save without living in abject poverty. Yes, all kids could forego university and get into the trades instead and do better, but that's hard to do when you are 17 and your parents insist on university and you don't know what else to do. Then you take on 10x the debt that they had to, and they harass you for not having money and being lazy. And not all kids can go into trades or start a business, the world needs college educations as well as retail jobs that pay minimum wage. Those are the people that are stuck in the hardest places, financially. 

 

It's easy to say people should just work hard and live within their means when you have money, but most people with money don't realize that it wasn't just hard work that got them there (if it even contributed), it was also a network, luck, etc. 

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

While I think a chunk of the population lives above their means, I also think that a greater % of young people today have no ability to save without living in abject poverty. Yes, all kids could forego university and get into the trades instead and do better, but that's hard to do when you are 17 and your parents insist on university and you don't know what else to do. Then you take on 10x the debt that they had to, and they harass you for not having money and being lazy. And not all kids can go into trades or start a business, the world needs college educations as well as retail jobs that pay minimum wage. Those are the people that are stuck in the hardest places, financially. 

 

It's easy to say people should just work hard and live within their means when you have money, but most people with money don't realize that it wasn't just hard work that got them there (if it even contributed), it was also a network, luck, etc. 

 

People with means are usually the ones who tell me, "Who cares how much money you have as long as you're happy?"

 

lol

[Guest]

I know people who make $500k a year and don’t save nearly anything. Financial irresponsibility is an epidemic. I’ve helped a bunch of friends and family reorient the way the handle their finances and it is transformative to their lives. 

 

But I am the weirdo who didn’t borrow money for college and instead just took as many classes as I could afford each semester, sometimes that was none. 

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I know people who make $500k a year and don’t save nearly anything. Financial irresponsibility is an epidemic. I’ve helped a bunch of friends and family reorient the way the handle their finances and it is transformative to their lives. 

 

But I am the weirdo who didn’t borrow money for college and instead just took as many classes as I could afford each semester, sometimes that was none. 

 

You definitely did well with your situation, but there are legitimately people who cannot afford both college and to survive without taking loans, regardless if they are only doing a few classes at a time. I do agree that a decent percentage of people do not save enough, regardless of the tax bracket they are in. But the situation is simply not the same as it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago. People make less money (adjusted) and things cost more, and it's getting to the point where owning even a small home/apartment/condo is out of the question for many people. That itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (I think the obsession with detached homes in suburbia is bad), but that also means many people can't afford proper health, education, etc. While it may be technically true that even a homeless person can eventually afford college and a home if they sacrifice everything but food and shelter if they take enough time...humans aren't cockroaches and need more in life than doing nothing for 20 years until they can afford to move or go to school. In countries with less wealth and income disparity, and with better-ran and funded social programs (Canada, Europe, etc), people are able to more easily afford these things, and society is currently much better off because of it.

[Jason]

7 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

It's a testament to the failure of almost 40 years of trickle down economics how foreign those financial benchmarks sound to anyone under....well....40.

 

To most of us, you might as well be saying it would be financially prudent to have a gold plated yacht saved back for retirement.

 

I was lucky enough to have my parents pay my tuition and I'm still screwed because my job literally doesn't exist in low-COL places. And my job doesn't pay great and makes up the difference in things like 4 weeks of vacation that you can take without asking anyone permission to take.

 

And while my job turned out to be a good fit for me it was literally the only place that responded to my job applications in 2012. I had one other place respond...while I was apartment hunting for the job I took.

 

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Many more people could hit those numbers if they changed their life styles. But we have been conditioned into being good little consumers who spend spend spend. Delayed gratification isn’t a thing.

 

Telling people to not enjoy life for a few years isn't a serious solution.

 

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I know people who make $500k a year and don’t save nearly anything. Financial irresponsibility is an epidemic. I’ve helped a bunch of friends and family reorient the way the handle their finances and it is transformative to their lives. 

 

But I am the weirdo who didn’t borrow money for college and instead just took as many classes as I could afford each semester, sometimes that was none. 

 

Succumbing to lifestyle creep at $500k a year is different than not pinching every penny at a normal salary.

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

You definitely did well with your situation, but there are legitimately people who cannot afford both college and to survive without taking loans, regardless if they are only doing a few classes at a time. I do agree that a decent percentage of people do not save enough, regardless of the tax bracket they are in. But the situation is simply not the same as it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago. People make less money (adjusted) and things cost more, and it's getting to the point where owning even a small home/apartment/condo is out of the question for many people. That itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (I think the obsession with detached homes in suburbia is bad), but that also means many people can't afford proper health, education, etc. While it may be technically true that even a homeless person can eventually afford college and a home if they sacrifice everything but food and shelter if they take enough time...humans aren't cockroaches and need more in life than doing nothing for 20 years until they can afford to move or go to school. In countries with less wealth and income disparity, and with better-ran and funded social programs (Canada, Europe, etc), people are able to more easily afford these things, and society is currently much better off because of it.

 

One of the things that got through to me on universal healthcare/single payer is the freedom afforded by being able to take a risk on a new job or a small business when you don't have to worry about a healthcare gap by doing so.

[CitizenVectron]

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

One of the things that got through to me on universal healthcare/single payer is the freedom afforded by being able to take a risk on a new job or a small business when you don't have to worry about a healthcare gap by doing so.

 

It's definitely a huge thing that most Americans just don't understand, or can't. I quit my job and went back to school at age 30 with a spouse who has a degenerative illness...and I didn't worry about her health, or mine. Then I took a new job and didn't have to think about health benefits. Sure, we have additional benefits (eye/dental, disability plans, life insurance, pension, etc), but the biggest one is not in the equation and it makes a huge mental difference. People here simply don't have to worry about the next illness ruining their lives the same way that many people do in the US.

[marioandsonic]

All of this talk makes me worried about my situation.  I quit my job in order to start training for a new position, and the new job is more suited to want do with my life.  The training started on Monday, but the new job starts in mid-January.  The training itself pays more than what my old job did (and the new job would put even more), but I'm not 100% guaranteed to get it, so if I don't get it, I'm fucked.  But I was going nowhere with my old job with its low pay, so I feel like i had to take the risk...

[Chris-]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

I was lucky enough to have my parents pay my tuition and I'm still screwed because my job literally doesn't exist in low-COL places. And my job doesn't pay great and makes up the difference in things like 4 weeks of vacation that you can take without asking anyone permission to take.

 

And while my job turned out to be a good fit for me it was literally the only place that responded to my job applications in 2012. I had one other place respond...while I was apartment hunting for the job I took.

 

So much for that STEM degree, huh motherfucker. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Telling people to not enjoy life for a few years isn't a serious solution.

 

Interesting that I didn’t say that or anything like it, yet you perceive it that way. It’s almost like that is *exactly*’the attitude of most of America that leads directly to the financial irresponsibility that runs rampant here.

 

For clarification, you can reduce spending without denying all your wants.