Only one? Why Trump is 10 times the president that Lincoln was.
Let’s save time and money and just lock ‘er up now, eh?
Admonishment accepted.
And thank you for your work as a mod and the pertinent contributions you yourself have brought to this discussion.
ーーーーーーーーーー
Reboot:
To step back within the bounds of forum rules then, I will therefore point out that the poster in question, WillFarnaby, has insinuated, completely without evidence, that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is both self-entitled and untrustworthy.
Despite his denial, the argument he presented in post #128 very much implied that people from Ocasio-Cortez’s socioeconomic class should not be trusted.
His denial of this is not supported by the content of any of his posts, prior or subsequent, and is indeed undermined by them.
Does WillFarnaby actually believe that all poor people are untrustworthy?
That’s uncertain. I would hope not.
Does WillFarnaby want people to point out that his method of impugning Ocasio-Cortez’s integrity has led him to imply the untrustworthiness of the non-rich?
Apparently not.
I’m thinking we should take further steps to keep out the poors by going the way of NH, which pays their legislators $100/year. Granted, the (Republican) woman I learned this from also informed me that the prerequisites for the job were “the three Rs”, which were “Republican, Rich, and [having a cognitive disability]”, so YMMV.
I can’t find the thread where we were doing that. You have it on hand?
…this is just getting fucking ridiculous.
The Ocasio-Cortez story has had a longer news-cycle thanthe story about the President of the United States being engaged in suspect tax schemes. The right-wing think tanks that generate the “Republican Talking Points” sure know how to keep a nonsense-story in the headlines.
Yeah, but, it’s not like there’s anything else happening that’s newsworthy…
Here you go
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=857589&page=6
The whole thread has Third way Dems and Conservatives throwing shade but what Sam Stone is talking about starts on that page.
Thanks. Not sure why I couldn’t find that. I posted in the damn thing.
It sounds like you were just throwing out reasons to attack a liberal, but when it was raised to your attention that you had not the first clue of what you were talking about, You backed into some other reason why you raised this irrelevancy.
Is this some kind of WillFarmabyism, where we are all waiting patiently for you to actually say the thing that we all think you’re implying, but it ends up sounding even crazier when you actually spit it out? If so, can we just cut to the chase and have you spell out what you’re trying to imply?
Hey everyone else, if we are starting a pool here, I’ve got $20 on “Lesbians are the real racists in America!”
Financial instability is viewed as risky in our society. The point about security clearances proves that. I believe I may start a thread of much larger scope that includes a discussion on whether or not financially stable people should be in government as it is a larger issue than this pol.
I have repeatedly stated that I don’t believe she is not financially stable. I believe she simply refuses to live amongst the people that supposedly are champing at the bit for her brand of progressivism. She is pure millenial socialist. Many old socialists were hardcore labor organizers who sweated day after day next to comrades in manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. Let’s call these bottom-up socialists. She is not of that type. She is more of an elitist progressive/socialist who wishes to engineer society from the top down.
No, reading comprehension is at a nadir.
Ok Joe Hollywood. I actually haven’t been implying anything and have been rather explicit. This woman is crafting a Jenny-from-the-block image and political persona, but she refuses to live with the “real” people of distressed communities.
She more and more reminds me of a progressive Sarah Palin. I could see her retreating to political punditry rather quickly if she finds such an avenue more lucrative.
Yes, what I said is quite different from what you posted. My posts have to do with the topic of the thread; yours are a non sequitur. I talk about how Ocasio-Cortez is complaining about how hard it is to get an apartment, you talk about how she thinks it is like high school orientation. You complain about how no one will float her a loan, I point out that she is about to start earning three times the median household income.
:shrugs: It turns out she has at least $30K to pay for an apartment, so this was just entitled whining from a socialist about how inconvenient being an adult is.
Now she can run off and take the bold, daring, courageous step of protesting in Nancy Pelosi’s office. Gosh, isn’t she brave.
As someone said on the radio this morning, she wants to turn the federal government into Berkeley. Oh well, it’s only Wednesday - she will say something else stupid before too long.
Regards,
Shodan
The level of voluntary miscomprehension is very high in this thread.
What do you mean by “real?” Stop using euphemisms. Just spit it out, for chrissakes.
The only “non-real” DC community I can think of is people who live in various suburbs who claim in conversation with people who wouldn’t know any better that they “live in DC.”
And do you not find it ironic that you split the people of DC (or maybe the neighborhoods?) into the “real” and apparently non-real in the same vein as Sarah Palin divides Americans into the real and non-real, and then you go on in the next breath to deride Sarah Palin? Seems like you and she have the same worldview, only with some definitional quibbles.
I believe you are insinuating I was insinuating something I was not insinuating.
Actually I implied that financially unstable people should not be trusted *with the levers of power. *I place plenty of trust in unstable people on an everyday basis. If not, I’d be looking over my shoulder at every moment. Your original post hacked up my posts with Ginsu precision. I don’t appreciate that, nor do I appreciate poor characterization of my position.
I don’t trust any pol with the levers of power, and I will do anything I can to point out why they should not be trusted. In the case of strapped individuals, it is their inability to manage their economic lives. I would look pretty silly discrediting Hillary Clinton because she was financially unstable. Similarly I would look rather silly discrediting this woman because of her crony connections and hawkishness.
Look, I’d hoped that maybe something would click for you on the reading comprehension front, but since such a development was not forthcoming, I outlined the deal for you above.
Above.
Above.
What did she say that was “whining”? Can you point to a quote? Or is this like your misreading of Kamau Bell that you eventually realized and retracted?
Are we pretending that poor people are not considered more genuine in American society, or are we totally unaware of this cultural phenomenon?
“People who live in various suburbs”? Just spit it out!
Do you see how ridiculous this is now?
Get over yourself.
If you like I will change “real” to “people not getting big money from taxpayers”. This is pretty much how DC is divided. You have your poor, and you have your parasites.
But HOW do you know what neighborhoods she will and will not live in? That short paragraph I posted doesn’t indicate where she will or will not live. What is your source for knowing her preferences?
On the radio? Well, that certainly settles that!
It is posts like this that remind me of the fraud of fiscal conservatism, in which right wingers try to gaslight people into thinking that it means “being careful with money.”
If you ask me, it seems like a perfectly valid household budget strategy to NOT go out and get a loan to afford expensive housing, and instead delay a lease until one has the money coming in to support the expense. In practical terms, I doubt that any member of Congress-elect needs to be in DC on a regular basis until January – with the exception of various leadership elections, orientation sessions, administrative matters, and other stuff that take place on certain days that are well-identified in advance.
In government parlance, it would seem to make sense to handle those things on TDY travel and save your PCS for when you need to be in the area more or less full-time. After all, if a congressman-elect needs to be in DC for, let us say 5 important days between now and January 3rd, why pay six weeks worth of expensive rent for that modest amount of time that attendance is required?
Damn, it’s like some people don’t know how to manage a household budget. But of course, this isn’t a matter of being responsible for one’s budget. This is a matter of right-wing talking heads finding any reason to bash a liberal gay minority politician. We can be reasonably sure this is indeed the case, because the same people have zero problem with white Christian male politicians seeing DC as too expensive and living in their government-provided office spaces.