Ocasio-Cortez de-listed from board of Justice Democrats after controversy
Tootsie isn’t quite the brain trust people make her out to be.
Ocasio-Cortez de-listed from board of Justice Democrats after controversy
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., reportedly has been de-listed from the board of left-wing activist group Justice Democrats, following legal and ethical questions about her affiliation with the group.
The Daily Caller reported that Ocasio-Cortez, along with chief of staff and former campaign chair Saikat Chakrabarti, have been removed from the board of the political action committee after previously holding “legal control over the entity" in late 2017 and early 2018
The Caller reports that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti took control of Justice Democrats in December 2017, until Ocasio-Cortez was removed from the board in June 2018 -- though she was kept on as an “entity governor” until last week. Both Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti were only officially removed from the board on March 15, according to documents obtained by the outlet, almost eight months after attorneys had said she was removed.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj99LO2go_hAhWH...
Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff illegally moved $885G in campaign contributions 'off the books,' FEC complaint alleges
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive firebrand's multimillionaire chief of staff, apparently violated campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies that he also controlled, according to an explosive complaint filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and obtained by Fox News.
*
The Daily Caller News Foundation's review of archived copies of the Justice Democrats PAC's website and relevant campaign documents indicated that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti "obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017" -- and yet allegedly failed to disclose afterward to the FEC the fact that the PAC was supporting her candidacy.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-millionaire-chief-of-sta...
Ocasio-Cortez de-listed from board of Justice Democrats after controversy
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., reportedly has been de-listed from the board of left-wing activist group Justice Democrats, following legal and ethical questions about her affiliation with the group.
The Daily Caller reported that Ocasio-Cortez, along with chief of staff and former campaign chair Saikat Chakrabarti, have been removed from the board of the political action committee after previously holding “legal control over the entity" in late 2017 and early 2018.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-de-listed-from-board-of-j...
Comments
Maybe you could include...
...quotes from some other media outlets, aside from the Daily Caller and Fox News (both outlets have done little more than attack AOC from day one)? Here's the story from that well-known Progressive bastion (snark), Bloomberg News (via Yahoo!), for instance...
Did AOC game the system? Yeah, it looks like it. But, did she do anything illegal that "...may amount to little more than paperwork violations." (Contrary to the "reporting" from Fox News and The Daily Caller.) Probably not, per Bloomberg. Should her voters be disappointed, and expect behavior (much) better than this, going forward, from the, supposedly, "truly Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party? Hell, yes!
If I lived in her congressional district, would I vote for her when she ran for a second term, if this is the worst thing she does in office during her first two years? Hell, yeah!
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Ah, so even though what I posted was TRUE
you’re going to complain about ‘sources’. Too bad I don’t care what you think about where the material comes from. I just go for the story. And I use everything and everybody. If it wasn’t for right wing sources like Fox and Judicial Watch The Clinton Creature might have been able to slip that Dossier on through as evidence of ‘collusion’. YOUR ‘sources’ have been lying their asses off for over 2 years. And if it wasn’t for the ‘sources’ you’re complaining about, we wouldn’t have known the truth about the illegal wiretaps and ‘unmasking’ before the election to who PAID for Steele’s handiwork.
This woman is nothing but a joke. I passed up the story where she hired her boyfriend to work on her PAC. She thinks she knows what she’s doing and is ready to play poker with the big kids, but it’s obvious she dealing from a deck of all jokers.
How about next time you post some actual INFORMATION in an OP I write instead of trying to deflect from what I posted with a hissy fit?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I'd respond to your comment...
...but there's really no need to do that, given the content of it, to which I'm "responding," right now.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
The entirety of your post, other than the snide jibe about
"Tootsie" (????), was a pair of quotes taken directly from media sources.
bobswern's response contained another quote taken directly from a different media source -- a quote that elaborated on the details of the story, beyond what was contained in your two quotes -- and a small bit of commentary by bobswern himself.
since your response implies quite strongly -- unambiguously, i will assert preemptively, lest you claim "you never said ..." -- that bobswern's comment contained no "actual INFORMATION", i assume you will agree that your original post also contained no "actual INFORMATION".
alternatively, of course, you could back off on your response to bobswern's comment, agree that it did in fact contain information, and possibly even agree that it was a useful addition to what you had originally posted. your indignation notwithstanding, he did not attack you for using those two sources, he only suggested that adding in one or two with a different editorial perspective might be valuable.
i happen to agree, to the extent that i care very much at all.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Well then,would you also like me to let
you read it for approval first?
Those stories were in my newsfeed that I get and I posted them. I used what I was reading. And no, he provided nothing new. Just info what I posted in the first place and they made some excuses for her. They always do. Like when it was discovered she didn’t really live in the area she was running in. Or her ‘meagre beginnings’.
There are women who were elected that deserve attention. This one is just sucking all the air out of the room.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
if i thought you gave a flying fuck about what i
(or anybody else around here) would like, i might bother to take issue with your bogus characterization of what i might like.
be as rude, snippy, ill-tempered, and irrationally defensive (all of which i think are fair characterizations of your response to bobswern here) as it pleases you to be. eventually i imagine that you will get what you presumably want, which is for your opinions and postings to go unchallenged by anybody, ever. have fun with that.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
The worst thing she does ...
In my personal and professional experience, actions like these tend to betray an overall lack of integrity. And those who look the other way ultimately end up encouraging--if not outright rewarding--more of the same.
People with integrity don't "game the system." They don't intentionally engage in what "may" or may not amount to "nothing more than paper violations." I guess it's okay, though, when the person engaged in such behavior is somehow viewed as being "on your side" or "on the right team."
Me, I don't see how "expecting more" of such people, yet being willing to vote for them regardless, holds them accountable for anything. And the dysfunctional political beat goes on.
YMMV.
You said it! I always have to laugh when
people start making excuses why some people are filthy swine for gaming the system, but there’s ALWAYS excuses for someone they support.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
First and foremost...
...I don't want to assume you're familiar with what it takes to run against someone like Queens Dem Party honcho Joe Crowley--never mind run to win--but it's not pretty. By definition, U.S. big city politics isn't for the faint of heart. Generally speaking, it's an ugly business for ALL involved. (And, for that matter, in most closely-contested campaigns in major U.S. cities, it's even uglier.)
But, no, it's DEFINITELY NOT "okay...when the person engaged in such behavior is somehow viewed as being 'on your side' or 'on the right team.'" And, I never said it was. (It's rather insulting to project that others in this blogging community even think at that superficial of a level.) Please do NOT put words in my mouth nor thoughts in my head that do NOT exist. Thankyouverymuch.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
What does one have to to with the other?
Did AOC win a huge upset against Crowley? Yes.
Does that have anything to do with the topic of this essay, or the point I made about her integrity? No.
What's the point?
Actually, it has everything to do with the topic of this essay. In the U.S., most/many highly competitive, big city elections aren't for the "faint of heart," as I've already noted in this thread. I'd say (based upon personal experiece), realistically, perhaps only 10%-15% of the dirty tricks, "shortcuts," circumvention/gaming of legal guidelines, and questionable behavior of major players (i.e.: candidates and their closest confidantes), in general, actually even makes its way into the media/public space. The balance of the--for lack of a better word--poor behavior that transpires in any particular, closely-contested, big city poliitical race is rarely ever mentioned, at all. (Even within a given campaign staff, there might only be one, two or three people that are even aware of the "the nasty sh*t" that's going down. And, quite often, the candidate is kept out of the loop to maintain "plausible deniability." THAT, is the inconvenient truth of the political campaign business in America, now; and it has been that way for a very, very long time.)
It's a very, very ugly business "at the top." And, it's getting uglier with every passing year, it seems! Just look at matters like: Citizens United, absurdly weak campaign finance laws, lackadaisical regulation of lobbying/lobbyists' efforts, members of congress being legally enabled to participate in insider stock trading, etc., etc. (The "list" of ways to play the system is boundless, with new scams created virtually every damn day!) And, that's just what's "legal," and "what the public knows." Is the public so naive as to think that what are now considered commonplace "bad behaviors" within our country's politic sphere represent the entirety of our politicians' bad behaviors and misdeeds? (This basic fact of U.S. political life applies to those in office as well as those seeking it; and, those even considering seeking elected office.) The goal of most/many U.S. pols is to build greater power/influence and personal wealth as they serve. It's baked into the crony capitalist system! Most of the political ugliness of which the general public becomes aware, nowadays, belies the greater dastardly deeds that still happen behind the scenes. "You can take THAT to the bank!"
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Ok. I read what you wrote
I still dont get the point you are making re AOC. Are you saying she had to cheat to win? That she had no idea what her staff was doing? That she won without cheating?
What exactly is your point?
First of all, saying she had "to cheat to win"...
...would appear to be inaccurate. Then again, maybe not. (This has to play out for a bit for the public to get a clearer picture.) Did she exploit a loophole in the law to obtain some degree of equal financial footing agsinst Crowley in her primary campaign? It would appear so.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Interesting.
IMHO, she is a neophyte. She is at the mercy of her handlers. One of them just thought it was "business as usual" and pulled some usual, sleazy stuff. Now that AOC is under a microscope, this Chakrabarti guy got caught - and AOC is taking the heat for it.
Your reply surprised me, because I thought your earlier post was saying that politics is so dirty that no one can remain clean. Your opinion seems to be that someone is going to take a hit for this.
I think it will be entertaining to see who that person will be.
Well, what I stated earlier...
...certainly does allude/imply that (in many instances, especially in larger cities) "...politics is so dirty that no one can remain clean..." Long story short: That reality, and what I posted, just up above, certainly, are not mutually exclusive.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Just because some right wingers filed a complaint
. . . doesn't mean that anybody will really be facing any legal ramifications.
I'd guess that the majority of such complaints don't even get adjudicated.
But of course there's a big bruhaha because the point is to throw mud at AOC while big GOP donors bundle big cash contributions every which way and get away with it.
Political mudslinging 101...
...it's how things roll in our country, these days. Then again, if both major parties didn't do it, that would mean Fox and CNN (and MSNBC, etc., etc.) would actually have to report on other subjects, like feudalistic income inequality, racism, climate change, etc., etc. Then where would we be?
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Tootsie? Really?
This is parody, no?
Part of the Never-a-Dem voting (or non-voting) bloc . . .
. . . around here customarily disparages any Dem, but especially any who is perceived by others as more lefty than usual. This bloc regards all such as sheepdogs for a system that is broken and needs to be replaced altogether. Any mention by this bloc of such leftier-than-usual Dem politicians very frequently includes the creation of snide nicknames. Kinda pointless and . . . well, I'll leave it at that . . . but folks here are nursing a lot of wounds from the American political system, so there's that. In real life one can spit when a person's name is raised; on the Intertoobz it's drier and meaner.
Wisely stated, DYM! Good on you! n/t
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Maybe a broken clock?
Daily News, Daily Blues from the Daily Caller:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/18/russia-misinformation-putin/
Not sure what your point is on pointing to this article
as Amanda stated the websites that people think are reliable have been pushing the fake Russian propaganda nonsense for two years straight. MSDNC is one of the worst with Rachel breathlessly reporting outright lies.
Many of us here have started using sites like Fox, the daily caller and many others because they are the ones reporting what we believe to be the truth.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
So you agree with Putin's new legislation?
I agree with you, I think, about the excesses of NATO, the ridiculousness of blaming Russia for Hillary's loss, etc etc etc..
I'm not going to ignore, though, that Trump is getting more and more like Putin and vice versa in terms of impeding democracy.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaZl12Z5P7g]
Why would I have to agree with Putin's legislation
or any other country's leader? This doesn't affect me at all and it's just more Putin bashing while countries like Saudi Arabia do much worse things to their citizens that the media neglects to talk about. Do you know how many journalists MBS and his predecessors have locked up or killed? Not many people do because our media doesn't cover it. The Saudis continue to flog people for stepping out of the line the leaders create.
This country has been trying to extradite Julian Assange for many years and when they got Chelsea in front of the grand jury to help them make their case and she refused to play along they threw her back in prison. So no I have nothing to say about what actions Vlad takes. I'd say that Trump is getting more like the dictators that we prop up. Vlad is trying to do something about poverty in his country. Donald is trying to make ours worse.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Why bring up the Saudis then?
What the Saudis do doesn't affect you if you stick to your line of reasoning.
What exactly has Putin done to bring up income levels in his country? Success? Why bring it up if it doesn't affect you?
It seems we agree about the Kagens. They scare the bejebuss out of me. It seems you've done a considerable amount of research into them. I would love if it you put together an essay about them.
Finally, it comes to a point where I wish you'd consider that there's always blowback. I'm wondering if such a hard line on AOC and oh, let's say the 15 other people who signed the letter opposing military intervention in Venezuela including Omar (I know the letter had drawbacks) might be pushing folks away from the Greens or another possible third party if Bernie doesn't pull it off. And then we'll be stuck with Biden-Abrams and war galore. And the Kagens will still be with us.
Ah yes, Pussy Riot.
You might want to check out The Saker to read the actual details of that whole thing. It was the Russian Orthodox church who filed charges against PR, not the evil Putin on his own. While I'm sure there's more than enough to question the church actions, in a rather conservative country that is now legally able to practice religion should the Russian government have simply ignored their charges because it was a church making them? I wish I had a link on that as I'm sure that will be the next accusation for me even bringing this up but I do not at this time have a link.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Russian law moves closer to EU laws
EU countries have a number of laws where people can be put into prison over speech. These are acts of speech which would be allowed and protected by the US 1st Amendment. Seems what is different in the Russian case is that it protects government officials from criticism. But I would say that what Russians have done is not alignment with Trump, but more with the French and Germans in terms of criminalizing certain speech. (Isn't New Zealand trying to prosecute citizens who show pictures of the mosque mass killing?)
In a oblique way, I would say what the Russians did with their new law is more closer to what Obama did when he prosecuted whistle blowers. Whistle blowing is an act of critiquing the corruption within government. While Putin might be protecting certain individuals, what Obama did was jail critics of entire government institutions. In either case, hands off government.
Yes, CNN and MSNBC
Are sad pathetic DNC outlets and should be called out. And there are plenty of others that are also Dem propaganda sites.
But don't forget that the Repub counterparts are just as vile. If fox reports something I'm confident there's a lie there even if it's just the angle they're pushing. Just like CNN or whatever.
Don't you think that after what happened during the last primar
that people have a right to be distrustful about this voting stuff? From people being kicked off the voting rolls and having their party affiliations changed to not counting the California votes to the Nevada caucuses to Bernie now blaming Russia for Trump's win to...all the ways the GOP makes it harder for people to vote and the democrats not giving two sh*ts about it.
Yeah I'd say that there is good reason to not voting. I'll throw in what happened in Utah. We voted for medical marijuana and the legislature totally rewrote what we voted for with help from the Mormon church. We voted to expand Medicaid to everyone who can't afford to buy insurance and the legislature totally rewrote it with help from the Mormon church. It's so f'cked up now that if the Trump administration doesn't allow what was written then Utah will not expand it for anyone. This is just two examples of what happened here.
So why should I vote in a system that is rigged against anyone changing it? The DNC has admitted that they do not have to follow their own bylaws and they can choose whomever they want to be the candidate. So let's say that Bernie or Tulsi wins this primary. No one thinks that there is a good chance that they won't be nominated at the convention? Sure would be interesting if they just decide to put Killary in don't you think? I'm not the only one who is thinking that this is their plan.
Then there's that saying: if voting changed anything it'd be illegal. I am not discouraging anyone not to vote. I personally just don't see the point. Especially in Utah where I know my state will go to the republican.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Oh, good grief.
I thought I had walked that delicate line here, acknowledging that there are different camps here -- pro-voting, anti-voting, pro-Dem, anti-Dem -- in a response to Wally, who's clearly not in your camp exactly.
So you insist on my thought about this? Fine, I don't care whether someone votes or not. I do hope that no one will vote for Trump, but that's about the highest my bar goes. I personally will probably vote in some races, maybe not the big ones, maybe not the Dem, maybe something wholly ridiculous, just because I don't like the thought of giving up any weapon (and voting is a weapon, albeit seldom a significant one) in the battles of life. Do others have legitimate motives to choose what they choose? Decidedly so.
I have stated many times here that I think we all need to be doing things outside the explicitly political theater of elections. That does not mean one can't also vote.
The one big thing that does bother me? Disparaging the choices of others here. It's their choices. It's Big Al's choice to do what he chooses, yours to do what you choose, Wally's to do what Wally chooses, and Amanda's to do what she chooses. We all, if we are doing anything at all, are pushing a pawn forward on the board, hoping that no one is going to swoop down on it with a knight we didn't see. That act of pushing the pawn, that courage, in whatever form it takes, I applaud. And I hate it when someone else goes after them for it, especially with shaming, or with mischaracterizing another's motives, and that holds true toward those who choose to withhold votes, too.
The little thing that bothers me here? The impulse, let's call it, to demean with trite nicknames. I don't think I really need to explain why that is uncomfortable. We're adults. Wally pushed his pawn forward on that little point (because it's symptomatic of a larger one), and I responded to let him know his action, his courage, was worth a reasonable response.
I didn't think I was attacking anyone's decisions, but just providing a context for one. Don't assume my comments are more than they say.
I didn't mean for it to look like I was doing this
I apologize that it looks like I was. I too was just adding a context for why I no longer vote.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I wish people didn't need to be so black and white about it.
For me personally, I believe the Democratic party is too corrupt to save. But I wish the absolute best for those trying to save it because if they win I win. In point of fact, I think those trying to reform from within form a nice synergy with those of us who prefer a new party. I think of myself as helping to provide the pressure that puts the bullets in the gun of reformers. I'm also the "vote to be won" in the event they manage reform... at least reform in my awful congressional district.
Insofar as AOC being a sheepdog, that's what Beto is in my mind. Beto fits that mold flawlessly. If someone has managed that with AOC too then I'm impressed as hell because it's a MUCH better cover story than either Obama or Beto. In the end, I don't really trust any politicians. So just like with Bernie, AOC needs to be watched carefully and where she makes mistakes, that needs to be dealt with. If she is actively working for the neolibs, that'll come out at some point because it has to. If her cover is so fucking good that it NEVER gets broken then hey, she fought on my side anyway *laughs*.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
"Fox News Debuts Premium Channel For 24-Hour Coverage Of AOC"
Murdoch's on it:
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
Awesome comment! Thank you!
Murdoch's freakin' out of bounds. Now, something like that should be paid for by a PAC, not a "news station."
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
This is completely consistent with my take on AOC
TPTB are trying to set her up as THE "socialist" spokesperson. And what makes people support someone? That your enemies are attacking that someone.
Bill Clinton ran this con for 8 years, with the GOP attacks on his (actually vile) personal life giving him cover to repeal welfare, cut corporate regulation, increase prison populations, etc.
After the last few years of increasing climate disasters, it has become impossible to continue the "nothing's happening" corporate party line. After ignoring a managable problem for 25 years, it has now become an unmanagable problem. That's the kind of problem that spells a lot of profit for corporations, even if they fail.
So, people are "woke" about climate change. And corps realize they have to do something, because all the hurricane, drought, flood damage is starting to impact the bottom line. So, presto, here is this overnight corporate media star claiming to be for the environment. And she instantly gets attacked by the rightwing.
So, we should all rally round whatever proposal she makes, and not look into the details - which happen to be extremely corporate friendly.
Rupert Murdoch is merely playing a predicatable role in this Kabuki theater. Keep the focus on AOC while the details of yet another fake left screwing are ignored.
Are they?
extremely corporate friendly? Cuz I keep hearing that claim but I cant find any evidence of it. I find that the GND is vague on specifics. It is more a guideline than a detailed plan.
Her wardrobe??
For what it might be worth, I think the attire the Congresswoman wears in public is almost exemplary for a professional woman, chic, appropriate and well made. I suspect she uses a dressmaker (or several).
If the Murdoch Press is coming after her, that tells me she is doing something right. As for the action taken by Justice Democrats, Hmm. I would like to know a bit more about just who that org is and, especially, who finances it? I don't doubt Amanda's reporting, but the accusations seem rather mild compared to the usual standard in NY politics.
Mary Bennett
Heads-up, both links go to the same place.
thanks for this
and may i offer a hearty 'LOL'?
first i'd seen of this finagling was at RT by way of some folks on twitter in whose districts aoc is their congresswoman. and yeah, they ride her hard, including the fact that she took her bows as having 'defeated amazon' cuz she'd done a selfie with herself chalking No Amazon on the sidewalk, while the truth was it was a massive group effort that seemed to have done the trick. on edit: i'd forgotten that she then stepped on her Big Brand again...and bought $40k worth of supplies for her congressional office from...wait for it: Amazon!
given that it's time for me to make some dinner, i hope you'll forgive me for dropping the links and leaving, at least for now.
‘AOC’s top aide accused of ‘stashing’ $900k in campaign contributions,’ RTcom, March 5, 2019
but then she fooled ryan grim, who writes for the intercept, not HuffPo, now. ; )
‘AOC’s chief of staff ran $1M slush fund by diverting campaign cash to his own companies’, by Alana Goodman, washington examiner, March 04, 2019
key outtake to me:
"Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used."
yeah, the reporting requirements a bit over $5 grand ain't that bigga deal, but the other stuff is. still, i dunno why the justice dems are de-listing ocasio, as i'd assumed they were okay with it. on edit: (i'd seen her open secrets page on twitter) but sure, we'll see if the complaints to the FEC grow any legs. but for me, she's been by way of a manufactured con all along (including her GND), so yeppers: i'm biased as all giddy-up.
Is this a pet peeve diary? i have one.
If you wish to post opinion, please do and say so. If you wish to post news: verify the sources of the information best you can. i thank you for letting me share my pet peeve.
I really am conflicted here.
Y'all know that I think AOC is a fake.
But I also value the peacefulness of c99p.
Unfortunately, AOC is possibly THE most polarizing topic on this board.
Before I weigh in on the particular topic of disucssion, does anyone else feel that simply escalating the insults is NOT the way to go here?
Hand raised.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
The difficulty here is not about polarized opinion,
much less about AOC.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Please elaborate.
I'm not following this that closely.
Is this some interpersonal thing? Honestly, I don't know what you are referring to.
Do you think ego
has anything to do with it ...
How would ‘ego’ have anything to do with it?
It’s about someone disapproving the ‘sourse’ I used.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
What harm does one congressional voice really do?
She's one out of 435 for crying out loud.
If people want to complain about someone, complain about Louie Gohmert or Jim Jordan.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
You make it sound like corporate media is "one man one vote"
AOC is not merely 1 out of 435. Count up the national airtime she gets. She probably is getting more coverage than 75% of Congress. How much coverage (on a daily, ongoing basis) do Gohmert and Jordan get. Almost zilch.
OTOH, AOC has a media machine gun.
That just tells me that the rest
are slackers.
Corporate media attention means nothing these days, the impact is largely limited to nursing homes. AOC's real gravitas is on the internet and social media, and she's tearing it up because few others are willing or able.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I will save that quote for later
Because I guarantee you that you will quote the corporate media praising her at some point in the future.
But I have to give you points for orignality. After months of people (not you, AFAICR) telling me how important it is that AOC has "broken through" into the mainstream, you cover the other side by telling me how that isn't really important.
Will you tell all the people praising AOC's media (TV, print media) skills the same thing?
It's must be a shitty day.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
For some people
every day is a shitty day. Everything is always about them, everything is a personal attack, to which they respond with sword drawn and swinging.
It's almost impossible to engage in a discussion with such people. Generally speaking, I try to avoid it.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Thanks for the intermission
I will use any source I feel like using if what
they say is true. And that includes Fox and any other media outlet that I find. That’s ALL anyone here should be concerned with.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I will be concerned with whatever gives me concern,
regardless of your dictates.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Ah, finally it becomes clear.
This is a fight about sourcing.
OK. You two duke it out.
I pointed that out in the first place. It’s about
‘Sources’.
AOC is a fraud and the only thing she’s accomplishing is making the biggest problem facing us today, climate change, impossible to deal with. She thinks you can roll climate change and economics in a big ball and start handing out money left and right and problem solved. That’s NOT how it works and anyone who listens to her knows she hasn’t clue one. Combining these issues with reparations and a guaranteed living wage for everyone, including people who ‘don’t want to work’ (that was another thing she’s lied about saying) makes makes any progress on battling climate change IMPOSSIBLE.
And the issue is just going to get worse:
Economic justice is one thing we desperately need but climate change is destroying life on Earth. When the planet is gone a ‘guaranteed living wage’ won’t matter.
And as for AOC doing a Clinton and laundering PAC money, what’s funny about that is when Clinton did it everyone wanted her head. If this wretch does it, it’s only a little ‘paper mistake’.
Years before most people on TOP got wise to Obama I got silenced because I came out and said he was a fraud. That was during the time period when he had doctors and nurses arrested for trying to speak at the hearing. He was an obvious fraud, and so is AOC. She’s already kissed Pelosi’s ring, which was a betrayal of the people who put her in office. But she has also said she’ll help primary other Dims who don’t toe her ‘line’. She might be in for a big surprise herself.
P.S. While she’s got everyone’s eyes on her antics the Orange Menace is packing the courts. ALL our Dim reps are letting it happen. And people wonder why others have become ‘never Dem’.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
My 2 cents for little it is worth.
I think you took Bob's comment as a personal affront when you shouldn't have. He even prefaced it with a little joke about how his source wasn't that far from your source. Of course you can use whatever sources you want. Of course, he can added to them or whatever reason including to round them out. It wasn't a criticism, a complaint, or a command. It was simply another opinion. You and Bob are both highly valued members of this group. We want to hear from both of you.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I agree with this
Maybe it's getting flogged over at TOP that sets us up to hear things too loud. It's tough, people work hard to work up things to post and put yourself out there. It takes passion and passion is a pretty strong thing.
And yet some people
still gotta wonder Why I Smoke so much (good)Pot.
put smiley face Blazin’here.
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
rofl
can you pass the popcorn please bro...
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
Now yer talkin'....
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSgGCOHuO1U]
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
What's the difference?
They're all working to reanimate the corpse of capitalism. Idiots, all of them.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
While procrastinating to organise myself for four days away
I end up here, oy.
[video:https://youtu.be/WpYeekQkAdc]
She's become an embarrassment.
Good on the Justice Dems for creating some distance.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Justice Democrats so upset with her..
https://www.justicedemocrats.com/home
That they feature her all over their website and facebook page.
So the insects are dying off
The bees are dying off.
The amphibians are dying off.
The fish are dying off.
and you guys are arguing about whether corporate controlled media organization A is more trusthworthy than corporate controlled media organization B?
Really?
Last I checked AOC was the driving force behind the Green New Deal which, while totallly nothing more at the moment than a skeleton, is at least SOMETHING.
Nobody else is doing ANYTHING.
So who the FUCK cares about her paper work. I don't give a shit if her chief of staff emblezzled the fucking money. I DON"T FUCKING CARE.
If she's the ONLY person that even fucking MIGHT try to save the planet, she can go on a fucking killing spree and I'll cheer her on.
The Fuck with you people?
Honest question
How, in any realistic way, can AOC single-handedly save the planet as a junior senator?
IMO, we have to stop hoping politicians will save us. It's not gonna happen, and we ain't got time for this shit.
Who's suggesting she can do it single-handedly?
She came about because of a mass movement that constitutes the closest thing we've had to a critical mass in my lifetime. Good luck with whatever critical mass you want to organize as an alternative before those 12 years wind down and that clock moves up two minutes.
Don't follow leaders. watch the parking meters:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0]
She is.
Ok, maybe not. But I too am tired of people idolizing their candidates and buying whatever song and dance happens to make them happy. Besides, the dispute in the middle of this had nothing to do with AOC. Yet, here people go making everything about her and/or them whether it is or not. I think I'm going to change my signature line to "if the shoe doesn't fit, don't fucking wear it".
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Yes
I know I'm late with this comment, but I wanted to say that this is an excellent point. You've put into words what I've been thinking about AOC, as well as Bernie Sanders.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
For the umpteenth time...
Corporations are the force behind the corporate friendly (public private partnerships with dictatorial authority) fake GND.
AOC isn't "doing something". The 24/7 corporate media coverage of her is doing something. It is trying to hijack genuine environmentalism and replace it with corporate environmentalism. Is the corporate media giving 24/7 coverage to LEFT wing opposition to her ideas? Giving 24/7 coverage to the Green Party, the people who created the GND ten years ago? No. Only giving coverage to RIGHT wing opposition to "socialism". And, if the rightwing opposes her, she must be a "socialist". Right. Sure.
Would you like to buy the Bill Clinton "I feel your pain." Bridge? How about the Obama "Hope and Change" Bridge? I hear they're both in AOC's district in Brooklyn. You can also visit the site where they dynamited the Bernie Sanders Bridge into the river because it was letting the wrong kind of people into Manhattan.
How many times do people have to get played by the corporate media before they wake up? They are still hating on Bernie. They won't give the Green Party any airtime at all. But, somehow, this neophyte gets blanket coverage for her half-baked version of the GND. Gee, what is that smell?
You're forgetting the Biden-Abrams IdPol Brdge
Coz that's the one we're gonna have shoved down our throatsif Bernie and Our Revolution can't pull it off.
And how's that gonna pan out for Russia and China?
AOC, if anything, is the MSM's attempt to divert folks' attention away from the critical mass supportive of Bernie.
If she doesn't support Bernie when the critical historical juncture arrives, a coupla months before the NYS primary, I'll be done with her, not before then.
Thanks for extending the bridge analogy
Its just too good to pass up, with her district being in Brooklyn.
If I believed in elections doing anything anymore, I would support Bernie. He is the only genuine class-oriented person in a sea of IdPol divisiveness. I understand you hope that AOC is the real deal.
I assume the "Abrams" is Stacey, the Georgia IdPol politician.
I really think that the Biden balloon will pop instantly. Cockburn has a great recital of his disgusting, racist career. The nerve of the man to pose as a friend to all the folks he screwed.
Watch the poll numbers
We'll see ol' chum.
I'm seeing a lot of hacks inching towards the exits on their sinking ships.
It may be me, but ...
I believe that's all part of the plan.
Flood the primary with dozens of Dems and their uncle's dogs, 99.9 percent of whom don't stand a chance of winning, to create an illusion of "choice." Not that we had a "choice" in 2016, but the "strategists" (talk about hacks) have to at least pretend to care about assuaging the anger over what happened last time.
Eventually, the hacks you refer to will lose momentum and/or drop out, leaving us with ... whomever the DNC wants us to be left with.
Smarter people than I have commented on how the convention might play out. It won't be in our, or the climate's, favor.
Of course it's part of their plan
I will do whatever I can to upset their plan. And the best way to do that at this historical juncture is to align myself with the critical mass supportive of Bernie, not malign it.
Coz unless Bernie and Our Revolution upsets their applecart, it's gonna be Biden-Abrams or good lord knows even Oprah. Wouldn't that take the cake? It's sure as hell not gonna be some white guy from Virginia like it was with Her.
In any event absent a Bernie miracle, bye-bye Trump, hello Kagens, and so much for Russia counterbalancing US political and economy hegemony.
You get it.
stop denigrating the forces for change. Even if the faces of those forces aren't unicorns.
AOC may be a wagging dog. I still need more than claims, however, that the GND is corporate friendly. Quote sections from the written draft or shut up. That last part not directed at you Wally.
That's it, exactly.
That's it, exactly. I don't care what the forces of change are calling themselves. Democrat, Independent, Green, or Martian.
(For the record, I've always considered myself an Independent.)
Think about Bernie Sanders' modus operandi. Bernie has always been marginalized, an outsider who's operated within the system to get things done. The analogy I keep coming up with us, it's like being a "secret agent" operating behind enemy lines.
I think that's the context in which he conducted the 2016 campaign, as well as what's he done during the past 3 years.
Am I personally happy with all of Bernie's decisions and actions? No. Would I prefer that we have an actual democracy with multiple parties that actually work for the people? You bet.
But a movement crystallized around Bernie. Not just a movement of people, but of energy, the force of change and evolution. That's what I am supporting, no matter what label people think they need to give to it.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
You make assumptions and advocate "lesser evilism"
You keep automatically assumming this corporate created persona is a genuine "force for (socialist) change". I keep putting facts in front of people that question that narrative. But true believers never stop falling for the savior of the week.
After all the stuff she has pulled, from praising McCain to bashing the New Deal, the worst you have to say about her is she's "not a unicorn"? That, sir, is lesser evilism.
how about another
candidate? a café denizen just sent me this, and i love it: 'Mike Gravel is going to make the 2020 primary rock; Finally, an 88-year-old presidential candidate that can out-insult Trump on Twitter, cockburn, the spectator; some outtakes:
yes, often candidates are clear that they run not to win, but order to make their marks on the issues; i hope he runs. iirc, he's the only candidate i ever gave money to. ; )
One good thing about Mike Gravel is
next to him, Bernie Sanders looks like a spring chicken.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
gosh, i think he
looks younger than the bern, myself. but then, as he says, he ain't in it to win, just widen the window of political discussion to include extreme anti-imperialism, direct democracy, end the war on drugs, and so on. i may tick up a post about it soon.
yes.
any potential bill offered (after 2020, of course) will be a gift to capital.
AOC : GND
as BHO : ACA
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger possibly. As of right
possibly. As of right now there is no proof of that however. Just empty claims.
'No proof'
Right, because it's all just one big happy coincidence that the people who wrote AOC's GND legislation just happen to be long time Obama hands.
No connection whatsoever I'm sure.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
great link, thanks.
‘Leading the Public into Emergency Mode: A New Strategy for the Climate Movement’, the climate psychologist
it kinda reminded me of this part of aoc's GND (green capitalism) 'proposal'.
“Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—
(1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and
(2) by acting as a threat multiplier”
You cut to the chase very effectively. Thanks!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
It is for Representative Cortez's constituents
to decide just how offended they want to be about this. Try to remember that Americans historically have always had a fairly high tolerance for chicanery. That is a national characteristic which is not likely to change just because of some lefties liking for purity. Politics is known to be a dirty business and voters tend to not much care for a Stevenson or McGovern "above all that", which voters tend to see as an officeholder not willing to exert him or her self on their constituents' behalf.
I see Representative Cortez as a change agent and gadfly, and, BTW, a lot better at that than the sainted drama clown Kucinich ever has been. While she is getting headlines other newly elected congresspersons are quietly getting to work in the new political spaces she has opened up for them.
What I would like to know about Rep. Cortez is did she promise to always vote however Sen. Schemer tells her to, and did she take the free trip to Israel?
Mary Bennett
Pages