AOC - A threat to all politicians?
- Thread starter Chevy1
- Start date
What makes her look like such a moron (and you too) is that everything she describes in her rant...…….also includes folks in her own party (PAC funding, Stock ownership, "speech") .
The "right" looks at her with mocking humor...not hate. Seriously. I hope she keeps promoting herself. You really are clueless. Nancy Pelosi is the walking, talking version of what she is describing here in the video. AOC's campaign of bashing rich only exposes her DEM leadership to the hypocrisy they live daily. The "hate" will intensify from the Dem party if she doesn't become marginalized. She's a bigger liability to their party. Not the GOP.
Then again, give AOC a couple years, she'll be pocketing some of that PAC cash and jetting off to lobbyist funded events too.
It's possible to be right on some things (they're all corrupt in Washington) and wrong on others (the only way to combat global warming is by having free college tuition, ensuring economic security even for those unwilling to work, and not having nuclear power yet being net carbon neutral in 10 years).
The world has already seen what AOC's socialist (non carbon) economic outcome would be:
My reference was her analysis of today's politics - we would all agree it's for sale. We've all seen and heard how many/most of these lifetime politicians, of both parties, are wealthy beyond what their annual salary could sustain.
AOC lays out for everyone something all here are aware - how politicians get wealthy.
I would expect most here - perhaps all - are in favor of term limits as a method to not only combat "corruption" but as a way to generate more collaborative governing.
AOC lays out for everyone something all here are aware - how politicians get wealthy.
I would expect most here - perhaps all - are in favor of term limits as a method to not only combat "corruption" but as a way to generate more collaborative governing.
Last edited:
lol at her sitting there looking like a student getting bitch slapped by a professor in the second video. this cvnt comes off as nothing more than a loud mouthed snot nosed millennial who's had everything given to her for her entire life and doesn't want to lose that.
That was a strong response - but it addresses only one point of her discussion. Can campaign $$ be used as hush $$. Believe Michael Cohen proves that's not so - the reason Cohen used his $$ vs. campaign $$ - now, if he was reimbursed by the campaign, that's a different matter.
BUT - where in that response does it address a candidate's campaign can't be fully funded by PACs? Does it mention that those candidates elected to congress can't purchase stock and write/vote for laws that would benefit them financially?
Last edited:
Awesome! A Pelosi reference. However, if you'd thrown in Obama and Hillary, you would have hit the right-wing bingo tri-fecta.
However, in response to your Pelosi comment, which, I suppose, is referencing wealthy Dems in office; you might want to revisit the title of this thread.
Her Green Reference mantra has its roots in communism. She is particularity not dangerous because she is babbling idiot. However, the ideas and some of the roots that have grown and seeds planted in younger generations for all this "free" stuff and handouts by the government are dangerous. Most of it is because their parents raised lazy pussies and that is their way out. Wait we can have all this stuff and I don't have to work for it.
But, there are seeds of danger in this country.
But, there are seeds of danger in this country.
And yet your comments under the "title" of the thread only refer to "the right hating her". Maybe your "titles" and "commentary" should match up.
Of course I am going to use Pelosi....she's the one actually in elected office at this time (obama and Clinton have already cashed out of the system) who is doing exactly what AOC in moaning about currently.
I agree - that green law is bat shit crazy. It wasn't a "green" initiative - it's socialist drivel.
As far as the younger generation, they have every right to be pissed-off. Boomers have continually kicked the can of debt, increased through tax cuts, down the road - and now, it's in this generation's court. Most are openly pessimistic they'll have the support of Social Security during their retirement years. College educations which, for boomers, were affordable now require this generation to go into substantial debt. Then, there's the transfer of wealth to the top 1%....today's generation have to look forward to a shrinking middle class as they enter the work force.
How do you expect them to respond?
I blame their parents for raising them. I stated that. I am not a baby boomer either.
Two, you don't respond by saying we want all this free stuff which adds to that debt and brings down what this country was founded on.
Lol, she is the socialist Trump. Full of shit and attacking everyone.
Her comments expose how politicians obtained wealth through "pay for play" (and she doesn't mention either party). Are you saying she's not hated by the right?
Perhaps, in your rightwing ate-up state of mind, you can't envision how her commentary is a statement for all politicians who obtain wealth while serving; she must be ONLY referring to republicans. I'm guessing you don't believe she knows Nancy Pelosi is wealthy....or that her commentary could apply to the speaker.
Last edited:
I suppose my "boomer" comments could apply to later generations - but it applies to, primarily, "boomers" - of which I'm one.
Not sure most young Americans believe in socialist programs...or a socialist America. However, we have to be a bit sensitive to how their situation has changed. They don't believe this, "all is well - nothing to worry about" as it concerns: healthcare, education, global warming or taxation. Their perspective is a bit different.
Last edited:
Christ...she didn't mention either party....BUT YOU DID in your first comment. I'm busting on your "ate-up" self proclaimed independent (bullshit) nonsense.
Of course I know politicians go into office and come out rich. Politics is an industry. Politics is it's own sector of the economy. For crying out loud...AOC wants to expand it's reach and grow it. She's just too dumb to realize that her "green new deal" will actually make the political sector of the economy crush the plebeian class she claims to represent.
I think she knows Pelosi is wealthy. She's just not smart enough to realize her democrat counter-parts are fully doing what she will ultimately do herself.
I identify more as a "libertarian" than a true "conservative". But hey...keep your charade going.
Her fellow freshman makes AOC look like Milton Friedman
What’s the statement AOC said? something like I don’t have to be “factually correct as long as I’m morally right.”
That seems appropriate here. Damn the facts, all about the feels.
The same attitude got Trump elected. Apparently it works.
She came in to office with a 430 credit score and two evictions and now she has a hand in spending my money. It's no wonder she's all for socialist programs.
If she keeps this tirade up she'll end up getting "Seth Rich'ed". Does she not realize that congress itself exempted its members from things like insider trading laws?
If she keeps this tirade up she'll end up getting "Seth Rich'ed". Does she not realize that congress itself exempted its members from things like insider trading laws?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-credit/
But but but Snopes /s. So here, have another:
https://www.politifact.com/facebook...umor-spreads-about-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-/
I don't know if it's true or not, but neither of those "fact check" sites do anything to disprove it. Did you actually read their responses objectively?
those two sites have achieved Canonical status among liberals.
Here's Politifact's headline....
Fake rumor spreads about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's credit score, bank accounts
How can they make it more plain? But let's just take the word of a moron Facebook poster, ok.
Yeah, because truth seems to do a lot of damage to the con's uninformed opinions.
An outstanding opportunity for you to prove the information's accuracy.
These sites exist due to the incredible amount of blatantly false information surfacing on the web.
Yes I did.
While a credit report would require her consent, court records do not. If she had been evicted and a sheriff's department was involved it would show up in a records search, as that requires a lawsuit...and no such thing showed up.
If one part of the tale is a whopper, we should assume the rest is a whopper.
Not to mention the tale originated with a fake news spammer in Florida, with zero connection to any news source.
But hey, you go ahead and believe whatever you see online...I think I saw Abe Lincoln had a quote about that.
You can write any headline you want, if there's nothing in the story that enforces, substantiates, proves the headline then the headline is meaningless. If her credit score isn't 430, what is it? The second article just said they asked one of AOC's lackies and they said it wasn't true. That's solid fact checking there.
People that have forced closed banking accounts are on a type of national register that all banks can access. Anyone in retail banking could find that info. Anyone in more than a dozen industries could easily pull a credit report on anyone.
We know she didn't have any money. If you remember she asked if she could get an advance on her salary to rent an apartment. So if she didn't even have a couple grand in the bank, no emergency funds, what makes any of the "rumors" that far fetched?
