Well, step one is recognizing you have a problem. You should move to step two now.
Actually, he’s hoping AOC will find a cardboard box to sublet behind Capitol Hill. :rolleyes:
No. She is not whining about it. She is making a statement about the logistics that a new congressperson needs to deal with, especially one who is of lower net worth than the typical congress person.
I likely don’t agree with AOC’s policy positions, but this particular criticism, that she’s bad with money, or she’s whining, or whatever is asinine.
If she doesn’t, that means the entire Left is a bunch of hypocrites!
Of course when someone who wants the government to give and give to people to even out the slightest of inequalities talks about a new inequality, you can make certain deductions about the intent.
You could. Or you could listen to pretty much everyone else, including other normally conservative posters, that tell you that you are full of shit. That’s also an option for you.
It is a deviation from her public persona, yes.
I would posit the allegation of comprehension paucity has more to do with the dearth of content you’ve provided rather than other’s ability to decipher it. In any event, do not impugn other’s reading comprehension in this fashion as it borders on insults.
Don’t do this either (full of shit).
[/moderating]
What makes you think I should listen to supporters and defenders of socialists if they are wrong? Especially when said supporters and defenders are probably uninformed about the realities of cost in urban neighborhoods.
I’m not a supporter or defender of socialists. I’m a supporter and defender of reading ability and comprehension, and it pains me to see you badly misread and/or comprehend a simple one paragraph quote.
No, it’s a deviation from the caricature you’ve built in your head. You have no idea what her current living situation is, her income or that of her partner and no idea where she is going to live in Washington. The confidence you have in your wild imaginings is damn impressive though, I must say.
To be fair to him, he’s defending an opinion he formed from before he actually knew what the quote was. That’s putting some constraints on his ability to argue his position rationally.
Tucker Tucker Bug Fucker weighs in:
Carlson Sides With Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Hate To Admit It, But She Makes A Very Good Point’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/carlson-in-rare-agreement-with-ocasio-cortez
Again, if there are any impressionable minds out there reading this poster’s offerings who find themselves thinking his game is clever, well, it’s just not.
There’s nothing remotely clever about making baseless insinuations and then denying the obvious implications of your statements while doubling down on the insinuations and slipping in vague insults at the people calling you out.
“I’m not going to come right out and say what we both know I’m insinuating, but I will mock your reading comprehension when you point out what I’m clearly insinuating.”
WillFarnaby actually claimed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a financially strapped individual, and that financially strapped individuals are considered risky in everyday life.
If WillFarnaby wants to insinuate that Ocasio-Cortez is untrustworthy by means of faux logic and nebulous aspersions, then I feel it should be pointed out that the broader implication of his argument is that anyone of Ocasio-Cortez’s socioeconomical position is untrustworthy.
If he doesn’t want to appear to be ascribing to such a repugnant philosophy, then maybe he should walk back his statements.
Or maybe he’ll just double down.
[*ETA: The tactic he went for was to later claim that he’d never actually believed Ocasio-Cortez was financially unstable, despite having repeatedly insinuated that very thing. The implication of the general untrustworthiness of poor people remains.]
WillFarnaby would like you to know that he doesn’t trust ANY politician and will boldly point out all their flaws. To illustrate his unbiased mistrust of all politicians, here’s two random examples of obviously untrustworthy individuals! Watch as he bravely insinuates that Hillary Clinton is a hawkish crony, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is financially irresponsible!
I must agree that WillFarnaby would indeed look pretty silly discrediting Hillary Clinton for being financially unstable.
I must also observe that WillFarnaby would look pretty silly discrediting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for being financially unstable.
This is all un-fun and games, but lets just step back for a clearer view of the level of conjecture and unwarranted aspersion being made by this poster.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
“I have three months without a salary before I’m a member of Congress. So, how do I get an apartment? Those little things are very real… We’re kind of just dealing with the logistics of it day by day, but I’ve really been just kind of squirreling away and then hoping that gets me to January.”
“There are many little ways in which our electoral system isn’t even designed (nor prepared) for working-class people to lead. This is one of them (don’t worry btw - we’re working it out!)”
New York Times:
“Ocasio-Cortez told the Times she was able to save money before leaving her restaurant job and planned for time without a paycheck with her partner. But she isn’t being sworn into Congress until early January 2019 – and has to move from New York to D.C. in that time.”
WillFarnaby:
“Financially strapped individual with access to levers of power: nothing could possibly go wrong.”
“…institutions consider financial instability as a sign of potential untrustworthiness. …desperate people do desperate things.”
“…not being able to swing a few grand for a few months rent does indicate a certain lack of financial stability.”
“My personal conjecture is that she could swing it, but chooses to not live in the neighborhoods I’m talking about.”
“She has no business near the taxpayer loot.”
“She is obviously being selective… Draw whatever conclusions you like…”
“She is more of an elitist progressive/socialist who wishes to engineer society from the top down. ”
“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.”
“But hey, if she chooses to make a concession by deviating from the interesting political persona she is crafting,…”
.,.I’m calling anyone who is a parasite a parasite… …She will soon join the ranks.”
Notice also that the poster is trying to have it both ways, implying that Ocasio-Cortez is both financially irresponsible for not being able to afford to live in the nicer areas of DC, and also hypocritically elitist for not choosing to live in the poorer areas. (This despite not having a clue at all about where she’s actually planning to live.)
It is almost as if he is suggesting she doesn’t know her place.
But that would probably be an unfair conjecture.
Yes, AOC and Sarah Palin have the following commonalities:
- They’re both women
- There is no 2
So…great comparison. You’re clearly a top mind.
Shit, now I have to go in that thread in the pit and admit that spray painting an anarchy symbol on his driveway was a good idea.
There’s been a discussion for years how the congressional salary means a very different thing to a politician from a low cost of living area compared to a politician from a high cost of living area. Your member of Congress could rent an average apartment in Bridgeport for $700, while the average apartment in San Francisco costs $3,600. Obviously a salary of $174,000 means very different things to those two politicians, right?
Personally, I don’t think this issue makes that big a difference on whether a poor person runs for office or not. A poor person has basically next to zero chance of navigating our campaign finance system to make a successful run at office. Just because you see a small number of less well-off people somehow succeed in being elected, out of the many thousands who seek such office, doesn’t mean the campaign finance system isn’t strongly tilted towards the already powerful and already wealthy.
So let’s say you get an offer for a lucrative job in Silicon Valley. But the employer states that you are expected to show up for a couple of unpaid training days in November, even though your job and your pay does not start until January. You consider it a smart financial move to borrow money to live in Silicon Valley for the months of November and December, because even though there’s no reason for you to spend so much time there on an unpaid basis, you just want to pay rent in an expensive area for no particular reason, and throw some interest charges on top of that just for kicks? This is your idea of financial common sense?
Because the people who seem to be advocating most for this woman to spend savings or go into debt in November for no particular compelling reason, on the expectation that in January that she’ll make it all up, seem to correlate with those who think that tax cuts that raise the national debt is a good idea. I’m curious if my perception is correct: that in this case, people who are advocating terrible fiscal policies for the country are also likely to advocate an unwise household budget policy.
And I believe most or all of those nasty little comments were from before he managed to get around to reading what she actually said.
So her plan is that she wants to be with her significant other in DC, and you’re advocating that she live in a rented room with her SO; and that if necessary this public figure should seek out an illegal rental (I assume that’s what you mean by “underground”)? And if she fails to do that, she’s a subhuman “parasite?”
And to support this, you offer… what? “Oh I know what things cost!!!”
Good lord. Renting an apartment with a significant other is a totally normal thing to expect. I also think she has a reasonable expectation to shop in grocery stores, buy new clothes once in a while, and be able to go see a movie with friends.
One aspect that seems to be overlooked is security. With all the magabomber types and other, assorted, armed and violent trump nutcases running around, Ocasio-Cortez can’t rent in a walk-up with a broken front door. The right has made her a target and she will need to find an appropriate building that offers a higher level of safety.