Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez moves into a luxury apartment complex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg y’all are so OBSESSED! Next thing you know you’ll be criticizing the big positive rolling stone piece on her just to keep talking about her. Obsessed much lol?

*pumps out 100 loudmouth tweets each day*

*1000s of bots make cringey tweets go viral*

*gets the attention she desperate craves*

OMG stop talking about me, why are you so obsessed?!

You're really talking about Trumpster the Dumpster aren't you?

Nice try, Vlad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

The manager's amendment wasn't given to the ranking member of the committee of primary jurisdiction until one hour before the hearing. You are free to create your own narrative but, I don't have to buy it. I listened to the hearing. Did you? It is of major consequence to each and every voter in the country. The bill is opposed by the ACLU amongst other organizations. I have many, many opinions about several of the amendments being offered and am genuinely shocked it was scheduled for Rules Cmte before the other committees of jurisdiction got to hold hearings on it. Again, it makes MAJOR changes to our voting system.

"Democracy Dies In the Darkness" right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg y’all are so OBSESSED! Next thing you know you’ll be criticizing the big positive rolling stone piece on her just to keep talking about her. Obsessed much lol?

*pumps out 100 loudmouth tweets each day*

*1000s of bots make cringey tweets go viral*

*gets the attention she desperate craves*

OMG stop talking about me, why are you so obsessed?!

You're really talking about Trumpster the Dumpster aren't you?

Nice try, Vlad.

EXACTLY! This is what Trump is all about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her mom was piss broke “scrubbing toilets” to make ends meet — but just admitted to media she moved to Florida to avoid paying $10,000 per year in New York property taxes.

EVERYTHING about this gal is a lie.

Oh, yeah, her mom is rolling in dough!

She bought a dinky little 890 square foot house for 89k in the crappy town of Eustis, FL, which shows up on several lists as one of the worst places to live in Florida. That's all she could afford.

Swimming in money my ass.

Man, idiocy abounds with these AOC haters.

You and I are reading different lists. I've seen many positive reviews about how Eustis is safe and quiet. She doesn't need a huge place. She's a family of one.

Regarding "reading lists" the PP attacking AOC quite obviously DID NOT read the original Daily Mail interview with her mom being cited by the various conservative outlets where her mom goes into great detail about her struggles to make ends meet, to be carrying on as though AOC had an easy life of privilege. Instead you are just citing little out-of-context sound bites about "SEE SHE FLED HIGH TAXES THAT HER CRAZY SOCIALIST DAUGHTER WANTS"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her mom was piss broke “scrubbing toilets” to make ends meet — but just admitted to media she moved to Florida to avoid paying $10,000 per year in New York property taxes.

EVERYTHING about this gal is a lie.

Oh, yeah, her mom is rolling in dough!

She bought a dinky little 890 square foot house for 89k in the crappy town of Eustis, FL, which shows up on several lists as one of the worst places to live in Florida. That's all she could afford.

Swimming in money my ass.

Man, idiocy abounds with these AOC haters.

You and I are reading different lists. I've seen many positive reviews about how Eustis is safe and quiet. She doesn't need a huge place. She's a family of one.

Regarding "reading lists" the PP attacking AOC quite obviously DID NOT read the original Daily Mail interview with her mom being cited by the various conservative outlets where her mom goes into great detail about her struggles to make ends meet, to be carrying on as though AOC had an easy life of privilege. Instead you are just citing little out-of-context sound bites about "SEE SHE FLED HIGH TAXES THAT HER CRAZY SOCIALIST DAUGHTER WANTS"

Didnt she grow up in Westchester, CT? That's the "almost" Greenwich, pretty nice! I had a friend who grew up "poor" in Greenwich, and it was super nice. The public schools compare to a DC big 3, the public facilities are stellar , lots of college options, beyond safe, culture, greatest city in the US a short train ride away... there are lots of ways of "being" poor. I would say that was a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

Well, Nancy herself said they had to pass it to find out what's in it.

A meaningless talking point given reality. But sadly I guess such talking points work on people like yourself who aren't living in reality.

You are correct that what Nancy said was meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

Well, Nancy herself said they had to pass it to find out what's in it.

A meaningless talking point given reality. But sadly I guess such talking points work on people like yourself who aren't living in reality.

You are correct that what Nancy said was meaningless.

The Republicans knew what was in the bill. It was essentially the same as what they had been reading and working on for months.

[Anonymous]

You can struggle to live in a "better" area. I think most people understand that. I know people who lived in apartments - both parents working - in order to send their kids to 'better" schools in a safer 'hood. And yes, there are plenty of professionals- AOC's father being one - who still struggle. I'm assuming (haven't done the research) that he died young, which put a strain on the family, particularly the mother who becomes the sole breadwinner.

It's not rocket science, people, to understand this.

But she's a kook. I'll give her props during the Cohen questioning, but she did have time to prepare for that - and researchers to help investigate.

The Ds don't need super progressive dodos. They need someone more moderate who can attract those who are starting to stray or have already strayed. She's NOT in that camp.

And if there were some unlawful actions surrounding PAC money and her boyfriend's "role," then she's toast. I would think people would rather "out" her now, during this Trump investigation, so that we can all move forward by cleaning up corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

Well, Nancy herself said they had to pass it to find out what's in it.

A meaningless talking point given reality. But sadly I guess such talking points work on people like yourself who aren't living in reality.

The bill includes some excellent and necessary reofrms to ensure free and fair elections. We can agree on about 1/3 of the bill. Don't believe me: check out the ACLU's letter on this.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-house-rules-committee-hr-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

Well, Nancy herself said they had to pass it to find out what's in it.

A meaningless talking point given reality. But sadly I guess such talking points work on people like yourself who aren't living in reality.

You are correct that what Nancy said was meaningless.

The Republicans knew what was in the bill. It was essentially the same as what they had been reading and working on for months.

1 out of the 5 committees of jurisdiction held hearings on it. I see it dying - sad because many provisions would have passed and enacted as a stand alone bill. Oh well. The Democrats theme after all: Roll 'em, Baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can struggle to live in a "better" area. I think most people understand that. I know people who lived in apartments - both parents working - in order to send their kids to 'better" schools in a safer 'hood. And yes, there are plenty of professionals- AOC's father being one - who still struggle. I'm assuming (haven't done the research) that he died young, which put a strain on the family, particularly the mother who becomes the sole breadwinner.

It's not rocket science, people, to understand this.

But she's a kook. I'll give her props during the Cohen questioning, but she did have time to prepare for that - and researchers to help investigate.

The Ds don't need super progressive dodos. They need someone more moderate who can attract those who are starting to stray or have already strayed. She's NOT in that camp.

And if there were some unlawful actions surrounding PAC money and her boyfriend's "role," then she's toast. I would think people would rather "out" her now, during this Trump investigation, so that we can all move forward by cleaning up corruption.

What she did with the boyfriend is ILLEGAL. They may be going to lockup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, when I looked at the amendments filed for HR 1 several hours ago, there were about 4 dozen. Now, there are over 170 amendments - including the manager's amendment - and the Democrats are mocking Republicans' claims there wasn't enough time to review the Bill. I'm assuming that means the amendments also from the language of those amendments.

WTF.

Yeah, I remember Republicans whining about not being able to read the ACA bill and not knowing what was in it too, and yet the Republicans had over 200 amendments in it. How in the hell can you amend a bill that you SUPPOSEDLY haven't seen and SUPPOSEDLY don't know what was in it. It was a lie, they did read the bill, they saw draft after draft, they had caucus meetings and other things to talk about it, they had staffers spend countless hours reviewing it with a fine toothed comb. When Republicans claimed they hadn't read it that could only mean one of two things: a.) they were lying or b.) some actually hadn't read it even though their collleagues had, indicating their own gross incompetence and no matter if it was a.) or b.) neither one was acceptable

Well, Nancy herself said they had to pass it to find out what's in it.

A meaningless talking point given reality. But sadly I guess such talking points work on people like yourself who aren't living in reality.

You are correct that what Nancy said was meaningless.

The Republicans knew what was in the bill. It was essentially the same as what they had been reading and working on for months.

True, but what she said was stupid and meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can struggle to live in a "better" area. I think most people understand that. I know people who lived in apartments - both parents working - in order to send their kids to 'better" schools in a safer 'hood. And yes, there are plenty of professionals- AOC's father being one - who still struggle. I'm assuming (haven't done the research) that he died young, which put a strain on the family, particularly the mother who becomes the sole breadwinner.

It's not rocket science, people, to understand this.

But she's a kook. I'll give her props during the Cohen questioning, but she did have time to prepare for that - and researchers to help investigate.

The Ds don't need super progressive dodos. They need someone more moderate who can attract those who are starting to stray or have already strayed. She's NOT in that camp.

And if there were some unlawful actions surrounding PAC money and her boyfriend's "role," then she's toast. I would think people would rather "out" her now, during this Trump investigation, so that we can all move forward by cleaning up corruption.

What she did with the boyfriend is ILLEGAL. They may be going to lockup.

And how long must we wait before they scrutinize this incident to the possible point of prosecution?

[Anonymous]

Sleeping with AOC gets you a better job woo hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sleeping with AOC gets you a better job woo hoo.

short-lived, however