I'm a conservative, and i went to an alexandria ocasio-cortez rally

  1. I hope you all find this interesting:
    ... Ocasio-Cortez spoke, followed by Bush, and I saw something truly terrifying. I saw just how easy it would be, were I less involved and less certain of our nation's founding and its history, to fall for the populist lines they were shouting from that stage.
    • I saw how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.
    • I saw how easy it would be, as someone who has struggled to make ends meet, to accept the idea that a "living wage" was a human right.
    • Above all, I saw how easy it would be to accept the notion that it was the government's job to make sure that those things were provided.

    I watched as both Ocasio-Cortez and Bush deftly chopped America up into demographics, pointed out how those demographics had been victimized under the current system, and then promised to be the voice for those demographics. The movement, Ocasio-Cortez shouted, "knows no zip code. It knows no state. It knows no race. It knows no gender...

    ... I left the rally with a photo - in part to remind myself of that time I crashed a rally headlined by a socialist, but also in part to remind myself that there, but for the grace of God, go I.
    I’m A Conservative, And I Went To An Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Rally | The Daily Caller
    Too bad we all don't believe that all our children deserve healthcare and education.
    That someone with a full time job should be able to afford a place to live, food, and clothing.
  2. Visit herring_RN profile page

    About herring_RN Guide

    Joined: Mar '04; Posts: 18,120; Likes: 37,922

    210 Comments

  3. by   toomuchbaloney
    I wonder at how easy it is for conservatives to believe that not all children deserve access to healthcare and education. The indoctrination is powerful.
  4. by   Daisy4RN
    US Debt Clock :: National Debt of United States

    I think that most people would want those things for everybody, question is where is the money coming from. How long before the house of cards falls down.
  5. by   Daisy4RN
    Relevant America: How Long Will Democracy Last?

    And when the democracy falls, what will replace it.??
    (This article is a little old but still applicable but we are probably farther down the steps.)
  6. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from Daisy4RN
    Relevant America: How Long Will Democracy Last?

    And when the democracy falls, what will replace it.??
    (This article is a little old but still applicable but we are probably farther down the steps.)
    It would seem that we are on our way toward a fascist kleptocracy.
  7. by   SC_RNDude
    We all want those things. Are differences lie in what we believe are the best ways to achieve those things.
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from Daisy4RN
    US Debt Clock :: National Debt of United States

    I think that most people would want those things for everybody, question is where is the money coming from. How long before the house of cards falls down.
    The debt results from an imbalance between revenue and spending, reducing revenue worsens the debt just as much as increased spending does.

    One sure way for revenue to collapse is to have an uneducated and unhealthy populace.

    So even if we choose to look at education and healthcare strictly in terms of fiscal priorities, it still makes more sense for us to facilitate the availability of both because that actually costs us less in terms of the debt.
  9. by   macawake
    I saw just how easy it would be, were I less involved and less certain of our nation's founding and its history, to fall for the populist lines they were shouting from that stage.

    I saw how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    We all want those things. Are differences lie in what we believe are the best ways to achieve those things.
    I don't believe that you ALL want those things. Look at what the woman wrote in that article. She doesn't even seem to support the viewpoint that all children deserve healthcare and education. She doesn't expand on how such a thing would be implemented in the real world, and why would she? Based on how I interpret her words, she's not on board with the idea that all kids deserve it, so no impetus exists to plan for it.

    She doesn't have a rational argument to put forth as to why children don't deserve healthcare and education, so her options are reduced to attempting to paint healthcare as a right as something dark and scary. Yet frighteningly alluring... To me it seems like she considers healthcare and education for all kids and the ability to make a living of full-time work as a seductive but sinister concept that could sway people unless they, like her, "know better".

    From what I gather from her words, someone who understands your nation's founding and its history, should realize that healthcare for all kids isn't something one should expect and perhaps not even strive for?

    I'm sorry for swearing, but who the hell doesn't agree that all children DESERVE healthcare? Due to practical reasons a very poor country might not have the means to make it reality, but a rich nation does. Any rich nation that doesn't supply it, has in my opinion made an ideological and (im)moral choice. They have also made a "macroeconomically" ill-advised choice, which in my opinion just adds another layer of stupid.

    As far as being able to support yourself on a full-time job, why does that concept seem wrong to some people? I don't understand why anyone, who isn't in the top 1% and who might personally profit from keeping the "working stiff's" pay suppressed, would be against the chance of making a living wage.

    I'm Swedish and the following thing about my country might surprise some of you. Sweden is often referred to by some American conservatives as socialist. It's not. We have a capitalist economy but as a matter of ideological choice we have implemented a strong social safety net. This is something all political parties agree on.

    The only thing politicians squabble about is that the right wants an even larger share of healthcare to be provided by private hospitals/facilities and the left wants to limit the amount of profit that tax-funded private healthcare providers are allowed to make. But no one questions that healthcare should be universal, available to all.

    Now to the surprising part. Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage. There is NO law in place that dictates how much, or how little, an employer has to pay en employee. The government doesn't decide how much people have to make at a minimum. This is entirely up to the parties of the workplace; employers and employees.

    When companies, almost exclusively foreign companies, have tried to pay their employees less than what the "going rate" is, they get boycotted by employees and the general public/customers, and have been forced to adapt to the same level pay as their competitors.

    The employer/employee playing field is much more level. The power balance isn't tilted in favor of the employer. It is recognized that while it's true that employees need an employer to make a living and provide for themselves and their families, employers in their turn have an equal need of employees to make their business flourish.

    It's a symbiotic relationship and due to a deep-rooted sense of fair play and fairness that is instilled in Scandinavians from birth, employers aren't allowed to run roughshod over their employees. It doesn't take a law to make employers act decently, it's culturally expected and enforced.

    When I see posts here on AN about nurses being sent home due to low census and in some cases still have to be available to the employer to come back in on short notice, should the census pick up, my mind is literally blown. We would just laugh in the face of an employer who had the audacity to try to pull that stunt.

    The risk is assumed by the employer. An employer doesn't get to **** employees around just because there happens to be fewer people hospitalized on a certain shift. If an employer hires someone to work a certain amount of hours, then they are obligated to provide those hours (and the employee is of course obligated to show up on the agreed upon/scheduled times unless thay have a valid excuse).


    Given the culture in my country, I think that most of you will understand why I don't consider providing healhtcare and education for all children and a living wage for all who work full-time very radical ideas. I think they are common sense, humanist and fiscally sound ideas. I can't understand why not all people, who would clearly benefit from such a system, don't support it.

    Here's the thing, all people in a society benefit from it, even the the most wealthy part of the population. Because uneducated people and people with poor health contribute less to society and we know from research that low socioeconomic status is connected to many health-related risks and an increased risk of a criminal lifestyle. All these things are costly both for the individuals and for society as a whole.
    Last edit by macawake on Jul 26
  10. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from Daisy4RN
    Relevant America: How Long Will Democracy Last?

    And when the democracy falls, what will replace it.??
    (This article is a little old but still applicable but we are probably farther down the steps.)
    Democracy has already fallen, Daisy.

    The current occupant of the WH is currently fighting a corruption lawsuit, which a federal judge, just yesterday ruled can move forward.

    The current occupant of the WH sided with a known enemy last week, and disparaged American intelligence, with the world watching.

    The current occupant of the WH, is attempting to silence critics by threatening to revoke their security clearances.

    The current occupant of the WH, has interfered with the free press, by blocking access to a CNN reporter, to a media event, the reporter was credentialed to attend.

    Yes, democracy has already fallen.

    The only question that remains is: What do you and I intend to do about it?
  11. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from macawake
    I don't believe that you ALL want those things. Look at what the woman wrote in that article. She doesn't even seem to support the viewpoint that all children deserve healthcare and education. She doesn't expand on how such a thing would be implemented in the real world, and why would she? Based on how I interpret her words, she's not on board with the idea that all kids deserve it, so no impetus exists to plan for it.

    She doesn't have a rational argument to put forth as to why children don't deserve healthcare and education, so her options are reduced to attempting to paint healthcare as a right as something dark and scary. Yet frighteningly alluring... To me it seems like she considers healthcare and education for all kids and the ability to make a living of full-time work as a seductive but sinister concept that could sway people unless they, like her, "know better".

    From what I gather from her words, someone who understands your nation's founding and its history, should realize that healthcare for all kids isn't something one should expect and perhaps not even strive for?

    I'm sorry for swearing, but who the hell doesn't agree that all children DESERVE healthcare? Due to practical reasons a very poor country might not have the means to make it reality, but a rich nation does. Any rich nation that doesn't supply it, has in my opinion made an ideological and (im)moral choice. They have also made a "macroeconomically" ill-advised choice, which in my opinion just adds another layer of stupid.

    As far as being able to support yourself on a full-time job, why does that concept seem wrong to some people? I don't understand why anyone, who isn't in the top 1% and who might personally profit from keeping the "working stiff's" pay suppressed, would be against the chance of making a living wage.

    I'm Swedish and the following thing about my country might surprise some of you. Sweden is often referred to by some American conservatives as socialist. It's not. We have a capitalist economy but as a matter of ideological choice we have implemented a strong social safety net. This is something all political parties agree on.

    The only thing politicians squabble about is that the right wants an even larger share of healthcare to be provided by private hospitals/facilities and the left wants to limit the amount of profit that tax-funded private healthcare providers are allowed to make. But no one questions that healthcare should be universal, available to all.

    Now to the surprising part. Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage. There is NO law in place that dictates how much, or how little, an employer has to pay en employee. The government doesn't decide how much people have to make at a minimum. This is entirely up to the parties of the workplace; employers and employees.

    When companies, almost exclusively foreign companies, have tried to pay their employees less than what the "going rate" is, they get boycotted by employees and the general public/customers, and have been forced to adapt to the same level pay as their competitors.

    The employer/employee playing field is much more level. The power balance isn't tilted in favor of the employer. It is recognized that while it's true that employees need an employer to make a living and provide for themselves and their families, employers in their turn have an equal need of employees to make their business flourish.

    It's a symbiotic relationship and due to a deep-rooted sense of fair play and fairness that is instilled in Scandinavians from birth, employers aren't allowed to run roughshod over their employees. It doesn't take a law to make employers act decently, it's culturally expected and enforced.

    When I see posts here on AN about nurses being sent home due to low census and in some cases still have to be available to the employer to come back in on short notice, should the census pick up, my mind is literally blown. We would just laugh in the face of an employer who had the audacity to try to pull that stunt.

    The risk is assumed by the employer. An employer doesn't get to **** employees around just because there happens to be fewer people hospitalized on a certain shift. If an employer hires someone to work a certain amount of hours, then they are obligated to provide those hours (and the employee is of course obligated to show up on the agreed upon/scheduled times unless thay have a valid excuse).


    Given the culture in my country, I think that most of you will understand why I don't consider providing healhtcare and education for all children and a living wage for all who work full-time very radical ideas. I think they are common sense, humanist and fiscally sound ideas. I can't understand why not all people, who would clearly benefit from such a system, don't support it.

    Here's the thing, all people in a society benefit from it, even the the most wealthy part of the population. Because uneducated people and people with poor health contribute less to society and we know from research that low socioeconomic status is connected to many health-related risks and an increased risk of a criminal lifestyle. All these things are costly both for the individuals and for society as a whole.
    What you described, is a society that isn't fear-based.

    Here in the US, the 1% is allowed to rule because fear is the motivating factor behind working folks accepting unsafe workibg conditions, low wages, unfair treatment, etc.

    Ordinary folks live in fear that they will lose the job that provides access to healthcare, food, etc.

    And the fear is real. Conservatives have aligned themselves with business, to weaken labor laws, erode access to healthcare, etc.

    You are right. It is clear that many people want to see the current inequalities in the US stand because it serves their purpose(s) very well.
  12. by   toomuchbaloney
    Individual conservative citizens may very well believe that all children should have access to healthcare, but there is little evidence that the politicians that they support believe the same or have an agenda to bring such a thing to fruition. Similarly, conservative approach to education is to take the focus off of general education of the population and place it on training of workers.

    I wonder if that sentiment about the GOP wanting healthcare and education isn't a bit like the insistence that Republicans are fiscally conservative and represent family and Christian 'values'.
  13. by   Daisy4RN
    I believe what the author of the article was saying is that these things (healthcare, a minimum wage) are not a right under the constitution and therefore it is not the responsibility of the government to provide. If we the people want to provide these to all people that is of course not necessarily wrong but the question remains how to do that in a fair manner, how to pay for that etc. I consider myself a liberal conservative, meaning I want to help people, I do help people, but at the same time realize that it needs to be fair and fiscally responsible. I think if we the people would ban together, instead of throwing stones at each other, we would be in a better position to protest wasteful government spending (that has gone on for many years on both sides) and have the funds to provide for those that we want who are in need. As far as healthcare goes, the ACA did do some good but also could have been much better, it messed with a lot of peoples insurance making it much harder to obtain care and much more expensive, at the same time it did nothing about medication costs, tort reform, regulations etc. The Republicans had a chance to repeal and did not so still not fixed because of politics. I agree with you Muno that it is a imbalance between revenue and spending. I don't think that we should just keep increasing taxes though because the gov. is not spending the money appropriately (just google wasteful gov spending etc). I don't believe that the Democracy has fallen yet, but if we cant stop being a divided country it wont be long. I may not like the way Trump acts, or all of his policies, but that goes for every other President before him also. I have been voting for a very long time and even when my guy/gal doesn't win I still wish them well and success because that is what is best for the country, and thus the people. I guess I just don't understand the level of hate and incivility that we now have, its just sad and scary.
  14. by   nursej22
    Wasteful spending? Would you include a $12 million parade, trips to Mar-a-lago that cost approximately $3 million dollars each, the cost of stealing children from their parents, caging them, and then reuniting some of them, private plane trips for cabinet secretaries, secret phone booths?

Must Read Topics


close