Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He has a point.  It's beyond bizarre to name the payroll processing company when bragging about how many people are paid every other week by "your" company.  I'm paid once a month through ADP, but never in a million years would it occur to me to mention them as being in any way related to my primary source of income.

That's because he doesn't own a company.  He works for a company that uses Insperity as a payroll processor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

RomaVicta
RomaVicta

Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

where is it a right to make a certain amount of money?  Just curious.  The word right is overused.  I guess a right now is anything you want it to be.  Is this an unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?  I am sure some you of will do some mental hurdles to apply it to that though.

You understand of course that the founders believed in certain inalienable rights; not because they existed on a piece of paper, but because they were part and parcel of being a human being (at the time it was more of being a white man, but that is besides the point). In fact, a significant part of the stated inspiration for this country was the denial of these innate rights under the legal structure at the time. Perhaps you should read a bit more on the philosophical underpinnings of this country. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47373

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I’m not in favor of letting people starve, but which inalienable/natural right was it that stated or even implied a guaranteed salary good enough to live on no matter what?  You can choose whether you want to cite Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence or the philosophers like John Locke who came up with the theory.

Why is AOC not allowed to cite her belief that (for instance) health care is a right, even if the FF or Locke or whoever never expressed it?  Are we now in originalist philosphy territory? 

She said it was her belief.  That's the end of it.  Feel free to think her belief is stupid.  Plenty of people don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I’m not in favor of letting people starve, but which inalienable/natural right was it that stated or even implied a guaranteed salary good enough to live on no matter what?  You can choose whether you want to cite Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence or the philosophers like John Locke who came up with the theory.

You missed the point. He was looking for a legal source of rights when it was clear that she was arguing for rights not as a matter of human law, but rather natural law. Whether a previous philosopher has identified that particular right is immaterial. His implication that she was wrong for identifying extra-legal rights is fundamentally at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of our country.  

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Actually you missed the point clearly.  I was referring to natural law.

Oh, so you already knew the answer when you asked question? Interesting. I hope we passed your test then. 

My point: you can take issue with whether natural law/human rights includes the right to a certain standard of living. But, you can't criticize someone for arguing for the existence of natural rights and be at all consistent with the ideology behind our founding. As to the former, I think you'll be hard-pressed to convince most folks that human rights don't or shouldn't include a general minimum floor for standard of living. This isn't a new concept in this country. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47373

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Who said she "is not allowed to cite her belief"?

The implication was that our founding documents did not state these as inalienable rights, therefore, they are not inalienable.  The FF were expressing their opinions, as AOC is.  Try to keep up, Junior.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LOL Washington Examiner. 

LOL the National Enquirer brought down John Edwards.  The source is irrelevant IF it's true. I'm withholding judgment until another source validates the accusation, just like I did when it was Edwards on the hot seat.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47373

Posted
Posted

If you go to the Washington Examiner website and read the story, you'll see little more than a few "that's really weird" quotes by conservative political commentators.

Now, that being said, if her campaign did something fishy and the FEC can figure it out, then by all means penalize the guilty parties, including (presumably) AOC herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LOL Washington Examiner. 

I don't blame her and her org for using Uber, largely, instead of the extra time it would take to use the public transit system gate 1 minute from her office.  Time is money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

It's also highly ironic that the only reason this video appeals to those cretins is because......vagina 

 

I mean isn't it just crazy how the only people who tend to ever bring up race/sex are always Republicans, and always to distract from whatever hair brained point they're trying to make. As if their arguments are shit and the only way they can feel like they've salvaged anything is to make fun of the other person's appearance and not even be creative or funny about that either. 

This is David Denison/bad teammate/Brian whatever the fuck his name is who is usually stalking me on this board level of stupid/lack of awareness here.  Democrats are currently putting skin color, gender, and racial background as a higher priority in a presidential candidate than that candidate's ideas and positions on issues.  It's becoming the only thing Democrats bring up.

  • Like 4
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 10000

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, zork said:

I don't blame her and her org for using Uber, largely, instead of the extra time it would take to use the public transit system gate 1 minute from her office.  Time is money.

But with only 12 years left before the earth is destroyed, doesn’t that still make her a murderer? Or just full of shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If you go to the Washington Examiner website and read the story, you'll see little more than a few "that's really weird" quotes by conservative political commentators.

Now, that being said, if her campaign did something fishy and the FEC can figure it out, then by all means penalize the guilty parties, including (presumably) AOC herself.

The story's relationship to AOC is pretty tenuous. Her chief of staff may have done something (or nothing) to benefit a company he created. There isn't really any allegation that AOC did or received anything, just sort of a "it could have happened" statement.  A summary of the allegations: her chief of staff created two PACs that received $3.3 million in small donations. The PACs then collectively paid a little less than a third of that total to two separate entities he created. Those payments were listed as "strategic consulting" fees. 

Notably, this apparently wasn't a secret or anything, the whole thing was previously explained on the organization's website, at least according to the previous article on AOC's boyfriend receiving payments. I actually looked through the Wayback Machine and I don't see the portion identified by that article, so I'm a bit perplexed by that. At any rate, as shown in the article, the website said that  the LLC was designed to be hired by "the PAC and candidates to actually run campaigns." It also included a bit saying the business would not be run as a profit machine and that Mr. Chakrabarti was receiving no salary. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47373

Posted
Posted

Yes, I've heard bits of the story, I'm just saying if something WAS in violation of campaign finance laws (or others), then they should be pursued.  You know, because it's the law . . . the kind of thing Republicans never give a damn about if it's a Republican being accused.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 10000

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The story's relationship to AOC is pretty tenuous. Her chief of staff may have done something (or nothing) to benefit a company he created. There isn't really any allegation that AOC did or received anything, just sort of a "it could have happened" statement.  A summary of the allegations: her chief of staff created two PACs that received $3.3 million in small donations. The PACs then collectively paid a little less than a third of that total to two separate entities he created. Those payments were listed as "strategic consulting" fees. 

Notably, this apparently wasn't a secret or anything, the whole thing was previously explained on the organization's website, at least according to the previous article on AOC's boyfriend receiving payments. I actually looked through the Wayback Machine and I don't see the portion identified by that article, so I'm a bit perplexed by that. At any rate, as shown in the article, the website said that  the LLC was designed to be hired by "the PAC and candidates to actually run campaigns." It also included a bit saying the business would not be run as a profit machine and that Mr. Chakrabarti was receiving no salary. 

 

 

We’ve started two year investigations on more important people with way less. 

Really, she should have left Nancy alone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, I've heard bits of the story, I'm just saying if something WAS in violation of campaign finance laws (or others), then they should be pursued.  You know, because it's the law . . . the kind of thing Republicans never give a damn about if it's a Republican being accused.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, I've heard bits of the story, I'm just saying if something WAS in violation of campaign finance laws (or others), then they should be pursued.  You know, because it's the law . . . the kind of thing Republicans never give a damn about if it's a Republican being accused.

Agreed but remember the Republicans ran and re-elected two House members WHILE THEY WERE UNDER INDICTMENTS for insider trading and embezzlement of campaign finances. 

They clearly have a different set of standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But with only 12 years left before the earth is destroyed, doesn’t that still make her a murderer? Or just full of shit?

I looked into this bit. I haven't seen anything to indicate AOC seriously thought the Earth would be destroyed in 12 years. In fact, several months prior to her talk that generated this meme, she posted the following on facebook:

"12 years. That's how long the latest UN study gives our planet to act on climate change before the point of no return. Food and water scarcity will put hundreds of millions of people at risk. Nature as we know it will never be the same. It doesn't have to be this way.

With far-right populism preying on fear, racism and poverty, we owe it to our children to make a bold, Federal Green Energy Jobs program to empower people in industries that will literally save our planet. Instead of subsidies for dirty energy industries, we need just and equitable investments in green jobs for every American who wants one. Our future depends on it."

https://www.facebook.com/Ocasio2018/posts/12-years-thats-how-long-the-latest-un-study-gives-our-planet-to-act-on-climate-c/1877512735672735/

She then linked an article from the guardian as a source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report?fbclid=IwAR175Zn7I8HIRvBqNMgRP4uPQQlhbY4LgrNV4XWfae4zkgvJKmP18rz6tWg)

A bit of a more nuanced (and fact-based) take than what is being represented by certain folks. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

We’ve started two year investigations on more important people with way less. 

Really, she should have left Nancy alone

You must be talking about Hillary because there is no way on fucking earth you can describe the investigation into Trump et al. as based on "less". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The Hillary investigation(s) lasted 5 years and produced 0.0 indictments. The Mueller investigation has lasted 2 years and has produced 30+ indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions.

Additionally, Mueller did that with Congress actively trying to obstruct instead of investigating.

The reason this looks like a fishing expedition is because the Republicans did jack shit when the fish were literally jumping in the boat.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Schooly credit for fish boat reference
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The joke's on you for talking to an idiot troll.

Oh, for sure, but I figured others may appreciate knowing that one of the most common examples of "AOC being dumb" is anything but. I don't really expect ChickenSandwich or the others to ever acknowledge that they're full of shit. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47373

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, for sure, but I figured others may appreciate knowing that one of the most common examples of "AOC being dumb" is anything but. I don't really expect ChickenSandwich or the others to ever acknowledge that they're full of shit. 

It's much easier to never acknowledge one is full of shit when one quite literally doesn't give a flying fuck about the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 10000

Posted
Posted

This is a direct quote, but keep on keeping on....

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

This is a direct quote, but keep on keeping on....

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

Yes, it is a quote. Obviously, in context, she is being mildly hyperbolic  to emphasize how important this issue is to the country's youth. It is clear from reading her Facebook post what she is referencing (the deadline for reducing emissions) and not the literal and sudden end of the world. Good luck with the whole thinking thing. One day it may work for ya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HtownHorn

HtownHorn 15236

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The Hillary investigation(s) lasted 5 years and produced 0.0 indictments. The Mueller investigation has lasted 2 years and has produced 30+ indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions.

Which is why the Hillary investigation needed a special prosecutor, especially after the Lynch Clinton tarmac meeting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

That is a fair point.   Maybe certain people here are always taking AOC literally. Perhaps we never take her seriously enough, but we do always take her literally.  

Maybe a lot of voters take AOC seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Amazon money going to pay for teachers comment, or the world ending in 12 years comment, their question is not, “Where are you actually going to get $3,000,000,000 to pay teachers by virtue of the Amazon deal being scrapped ?” or, you know, “How exactly is the Green New Deal going to save the world from destruction 12 years from now?” What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible economic policy.

Maybe we are being unfair and she just needs the benefit of the doubt because she’s unpolished.

Jesus christ, listen to the interview. Read the Facebook post. She wasn't being literal, she was making a rhetorical point. A fucking 5th grader could have figured that out; it wasn't subtle. It wasn't an example of being unpolished, it was an example of certain people being either disingenuous or moronic when referencing her statement. Period. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18437

Posted
Posted
Just now, HtownHorn said:

Which is why the Hillary investigation needed a special prosecutor, especially after the Lynch Clinton tarmac meeting.

I am sorry. Did the Republicans not have complete control of the government just last year? I feel like this pressing need could have been easily met, you know, if there was actually any substance to it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HtownHorn

HtownHorn 15236

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I am sorry. Did the Republicans not have complete control of the government just last year? I feel like this pressing need could have been easily met, you know, if there was actually any substance to it all. 

Obama was the president when the Clinton investigation took place. stupid troll attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...