Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez moves into a luxury apartment complex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way down at the bottom of the article, it admits that her apartment rents are right about the average for DC.

“What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.“

But she won’t live in a place with “affordable housing units.” Code for poor people. She will campaign on their backs, and claim she’s for them, but once she has the ability, she won’t live near them.

It’s hypocritical to do this.

How do you know she "won’t live in a place" with affordable housing? She would not be eligible for affordable housing herself and there might not be a building that meets her needs that has non-affordable housing units available. Do you have any evidence that she had an opportunity to live in a building with affordable housing and declined?

Don’t know any of that but neither do you. She’s the force and face of socialism and helping the poor and downtrodden, and you’d think she’d maintain her values by living the way she wants all Americans to live.

It’s actually quite stunningly she abandoned her mantra the first time she’s in DC. I expected her to be an elected official that sleeps in their office to save money like many of them do.

Wait, what?

1) Why do you think she expects "all Americans" should live in poverty and only shop at the typical price-gouging inner city neighborhood grocer? You do realize that the little grocers that are sparsely available in poor urban neighborhoods charge MORE for their (often limited) groceries than typical suburban chains that won't go into those neighborhoods, right? In large part because they're mom and pop stores that don't have the benefit of wholesale bulk buying. I would think she'd hope that ALL Americans would be able to access the healthy foods one finds at a chain like Whole Foods. I would think everyone would hope that all Americans could access that, instead of having to select from the sparce produce and larger offerings of processed prepackaged stuff available in a small inner city grocer. Have you ever heard of food deserts by the way? I would hope you'd be in support of national chains like Whole Foods going into places that have been plagued by lack of decent grocery offerings.

2) Why do you think it's better for a representative to live off taxpayer dollars by sleeping in their office, paying no utilities, taking advantage of the free cleaning service, instead of contributing to the economy by paying rent and utilities and hiring a housekeeper for their home? Sounds like entitlement to me.

1) grew up in NYC please tell me more about bodegas you fool

2) the office exists, the housekeeper will clean regardless, and the utilities are there no matter what.

They don’t cut the power to the unoccupied offices when the elected officials leave.

Elected officials are in DC maybe 85 days/nights per year, but would need to rent an appointment for 365.

Are there rules against sleeping in your office in DC? I don’t know if any. So I doubt people sleeping on air mattresses in their office are contributing to some kind of massive taxpayer drain.

I work in a federal office and yes, I would get into huge trouble if I brought an air mattress to sleep in my office.

Like how you completely ignored the question of why all Americans should not be able to shop at a decent grocer or about the comparison of WF's prices to inner city grocer prices. Too incovenient to address those because you know it derails your silly claims about AOC.

So elected officials can stay in their offices though. That’s what I meant. Not you. They don’t have rules against it. Just the peasantry with the rules.

You and I both know I have zero control over America’s grocery systems.

I don’t make or choose the system. However if I were an elected official that campaigned like AOC, pushed Amazon out of NYC like AOC, but then shopped for my personal groceries at WF- I’d be an enormous hypocrite.

Again, why don't you show us a real life comparison of prices at WF compared to inner city grocers? You won't because you know it won't back up your claim.

(You do know it's possible to buy non-organic produce at WF, don't you?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6722955/amp/Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-moves-luxury-apartment-complex-NO-affordable-housing-units.html

Ocasio-Cortez makes $174,000 annually with her congressional salary and has used the funds to move into the posh Navy Yard neighborhood in Washington D.C. that, ironically, is also a favorite of President Donald Trump's staffers.

My mother was a socialist when I was growing up and lived at home. She still is. She painted a picture of socialism that sounded good. I definitely was a lefty in college. Extreme.

But stuff like this is why I cannot take socialism seriously. The minute AOC gets to DC, it’s luxury for her.

If she truly was a working class champion, she’d live somewhere less expensive and donate or help the poor and downtrodden.

That’s supposed to be the difference between people like her and the rich baddies. But it seems all people want is to feed voters a line, get in office, and then, good times.

Yep. This is why Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a classic. I am a DC resident--have never understood why the Obamas, Clintons etc. don't send their kids to school with "the people" or live with "the people". Last one to do so was Jimmy Carter (school). There are lots and lots of places to live in DC--she could do the "English basement" experience so many of us did coming up, or live in a "transitional" neighborhood in a less than luxury flat like so many teachers and first responders. Hard to take her seriously, for sure.

+1

Spot on. I thought that AOC May have been somewhat legit.

But nope.

Bernie held out for a long long time. He was in his early 40s before he succumbed.

AOC held out merely weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good grief. Navy Yard apartment buildings are offering great rent incentives (e.g., two months free, waive security deposit, etc.) in order to lease up. So what they are quoting is not what they are paying. And the "sleep in their office" stunt used to be the purview of the sanctimonious conservatives like Mark Sanford, who did it when he first came to DC as a budget hawk back in the 90s. (Back before he took off to South America to see his mistress ---thus losing the sanctimony---and back when Republicans actually cared about things like the budget). AOC can walk to work from the Navy Yard (thus being "green"). Just let it go people. She is young, she is callow, and she has a lot of learn but she has a lot of potential.

LOL--socialism is always about the 'promise of tomorrow', never the reality of today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many junior members of congress share apartments given that they split time with their home districts.....that seems to be the normal housing strategy.

Can you provide evidence that she is not sharing her apartment? Why do posters keep making assumptions that have no basis?

Can you provide evidence she is sharing an apartment? No. And I cannot provide any evidence she isn’t.

But she is shopping at Whole Foods, which I find despicable after running Amazon out of NYC.

Why? She is contributing to the livelihoods of those who work there. Maybe you should talk to them about whether they want people shopping there or not.

Something she denied to the people of NYC.

Something Amazon denied when it decided to pull out. It didn't need to pull out. It has set up shop in other areas that didn't offer crazy incentives for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way down at the bottom of the article, it admits that her apartment rents are right about the average for DC.

“What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.“

But she won’t live in a place with “affordable housing units.” Code for poor people. She will campaign on their backs, and claim she’s for them, but once she has the ability, she won’t live near them.

It’s hypocritical to do this.

How do you know she "won’t live in a place" with affordable housing? She would not be eligible for affordable housing herself and there might not be a building that meets her needs that has non-affordable housing units available. Do you have any evidence that she had an opportunity to live in a building with affordable housing and declined?

You can't assume anything about her apartment hunting. We can only go by what was in the article:

What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.

Young people are idealistic until they hit the jackpot.

Again, do you know that there were buildings with affordable housing units available that met her needs? Most of the affordable housing in that neighborhood is public housing. She couldn't very well live there, could she? She chose a transitioning neighborhood. If you folks were really up on today's left, you would know that it would a far better criticism to call her a gentrifier.

Many junior members of congress share apartments given that they split time with their home districts.....that seems to be the normal housing strategy.

She has a baby daddy that doesn't appear to have any other job than being her boyfriend. That might be an awkward living sitch for other members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tons and tons of places to live in DC, simpler, with roomates etc. Group home in Mt. Pleasant perhaps? And yes, donate part of your salary -- maybe live nearby an organization for volunteer hours. We don't have socialism YET, but she could sure live as if we do!

I am 10:10, and I agree with you 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way down at the bottom of the article, it admits that her apartment rents are right about the average for DC.

“What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.“

But she won’t live in a place with “affordable housing units.” Code for poor people. She will campaign on their backs, and claim she’s for them, but once she has the ability, she won’t live near them.

It’s hypocritical to do this.

How do you know she "won’t live in a place" with affordable housing? She would not be eligible for affordable housing herself and there might not be a building that meets her needs that has non-affordable housing units available. Do you have any evidence that she had an opportunity to live in a building with affordable housing and declined?

Don’t know any of that but neither do you. She’s the force and face of socialism and helping the poor and downtrodden, and you’d think she’d maintain her values by living the way she wants all Americans to live.

It’s actually quite stunningly she abandoned her mantra the first time she’s in DC. I expected her to be an elected official that sleeps in their office to save money like many of them do.

Wait, what?

1) Why do you think she expects "all Americans" should live in poverty and only shop at the typical price-gouging inner city neighborhood grocer? You do realize that the little grocers that are sparsely available in poor urban neighborhoods charge MORE for their (often limited) groceries than typical suburban chains that won't go into those neighborhoods, right? In large part because they're mom and pop stores that don't have the benefit of wholesale bulk buying. I would think she'd hope that ALL Americans would be able to access the healthy foods one finds at a chain like Whole Foods. I would think everyone would hope that all Americans could access that, instead of having to select from the sparce produce and larger offerings of processed prepackaged stuff available in a small inner city grocer. Have you ever heard of food deserts by the way? I would hope you'd be in support of national chains like Whole Foods going into places that have been plagued by lack of decent grocery offerings.

2) Why do you think it's better for a representative to live off taxpayer dollars by sleeping in their office, paying no utilities, taking advantage of the free cleaning service, instead of contributing to the economy by paying rent and utilities and hiring a housekeeper for their home? Sounds like entitlement to me.

1) grew up in NYC please tell me more about bodegas you fool

2) the office exists, the housekeeper will clean regardless, and the utilities are there no matter what.

They don’t cut the power to the unoccupied offices when the elected officials leave.

Elected officials are in DC maybe 85 days/nights per year, but would need to rent an appointment for 365.

Are there rules against sleeping in your office in DC? I don’t know if any. So I doubt people sleeping on air mattresses in their office are contributing to some kind of massive taxpayer drain.

I work in a federal office and yes, I would get into huge trouble if I brought an air mattress to sleep in my office.

Like how you completely ignored the question of why all Americans should not be able to shop at a decent grocer or about the comparison of WF's prices to inner city grocer prices. Too incovenient to address those because you know it derails your silly claims about AOC.

So elected officials can stay in their offices though. That’s what I meant. Not you. They don’t have rules against it. Just the peasantry with the rules.

You and I both know I have zero control over America’s grocery systems.

I don’t make or choose the system. However if I were an elected official that campaigned like AOC, pushed Amazon out of NYC like AOC, but then shopped for my personal groceries at WF- I’d be an enormous hypocrite.

Again, why don't you show us a real life comparison of prices at WF compared to inner city grocers? You won't because you know it won't back up your claim.

(You do know it's possible to buy non-organic produce at WF, don't you?)

You miss the point. She ran Amazon out of NYC and denied people living there a chance at about 25,000 jobs. Because of her morals and values.

But she personally will shop at Amazon owned Whole Foods.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many junior members of congress share apartments given that they split time with their home districts.....that seems to be the normal housing strategy.

Can you provide evidence that she is not sharing her apartment? Why do posters keep making assumptions that have no basis?

Can you provide evidence she is sharing an apartment? No. And I cannot provide any evidence she isn’t.

But she is shopping at Whole Foods, which I find despicable after running Amazon out of NYC.

Why? She is contributing to the livelihoods of those who work there. Maybe you should talk to them about whether they want people shopping there or not.

Something she denied to the people of NYC.

Uh, they don't want it. Neither do we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way down at the bottom of the article, it admits that her apartment rents are right about the average for DC.

“What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.“

But she won’t live in a place with “affordable housing units.” Code for poor people. She will campaign on their backs, and claim she’s for them, but once she has the ability, she won’t live near them.

It’s hypocritical to do this.

How do you know she "won’t live in a place" with affordable housing? She would not be eligible for affordable housing herself and there might not be a building that meets her needs that has non-affordable housing units available. Do you have any evidence that she had an opportunity to live in a building with affordable housing and declined?

Don’t know any of that but neither do you. She’s the force and face of socialism and helping the poor and downtrodden, and you’d think she’d maintain her values by living the way she wants all Americans to live.

It’s actually quite stunningly she abandoned her mantra the first time she’s in DC. I expected her to be an elected official that sleeps in their office to save money like many of them do.

That's not a statement, it's just sad. And illegal. She certainly shouldn't do that.

Completely inappropriate for public servants to stay in their offices, using utilities and janitorial services on the taxpayers dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tons and tons of places to live in DC, simpler, with roomates etc. Group home in Mt. Pleasant perhaps? And yes, donate part of your salary -- maybe live nearby an organization for volunteer hours. We don't have socialism YET, but she could sure live as if we do!

I am 10:10, and I agree with you 100%.

Why? That doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

If she lived in her office, people would ding her for that too. Because taxpayers pay for that. Plus they would ding her for going to a fancy gym to take a shower (even if there aren't crummy gyms for poor people nearby).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tons and tons of places to live in DC, simpler, with roomates etc. Group home in Mt. Pleasant perhaps? And yes, donate part of your salary -- maybe live nearby an organization for volunteer hours. We don't have socialism YET, but she could sure live as if we do!

I am 10:10, and I agree with you 100%.

Why? That doesn't make any sense.

What are you asking? What I wrote in 10:10 makes sense. If she's really for the people, she'd live like one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many junior members of congress share apartments given that they split time with their home districts.....that seems to be the normal housing strategy.

Can you provide evidence that she is not sharing her apartment? Why do posters keep making assumptions that have no basis?

Can you provide evidence she is sharing an apartment? No. And I cannot provide any evidence she isn’t.

But she is shopping at Whole Foods, which I find despicable after running Amazon out of NYC.

Why? She is contributing to the livelihoods of those who work there. Maybe you should talk to them about whether they want people shopping there or not.

Something she denied to the people of NYC.

Uh, they don't want it. Neither do we.

The majority wanted it in NYC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way down at the bottom of the article, it admits that her apartment rents are right about the average for DC.

“What it doesn't offer is affordable housing - a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress.“

But she won’t live in a place with “affordable housing units.” Code for poor people. She will campaign on their backs, and claim she’s for them, but once she has the ability, she won’t live near them.

It’s hypocritical to do this.

How do you know she "won’t live in a place" with affordable housing? She would not be eligible for affordable housing herself and there might not be a building that meets her needs that has non-affordable housing units available. Do you have any evidence that she had an opportunity to live in a building with affordable housing and declined?

Don’t know any of that but neither do you. She’s the force and face of socialism and helping the poor and downtrodden, and you’d think she’d maintain her values by living the way she wants all Americans to live.

It’s actually quite stunningly she abandoned her mantra the first time she’s in DC. I expected her to be an elected official that sleeps in their office to save money like many of them do.

Wait, what?

1) Why do you think she expects "all Americans" should live in poverty and only shop at the typical price-gouging inner city neighborhood grocer? You do realize that the little grocers that are sparsely available in poor urban neighborhoods charge MORE for their (often limited) groceries than typical suburban chains that won't go into those neighborhoods, right? In large part because they're mom and pop stores that don't have the benefit of wholesale bulk buying. I would think she'd hope that ALL Americans would be able to access the healthy foods one finds at a chain like Whole Foods. I would think everyone would hope that all Americans could access that, instead of having to select from the sparce produce and larger offerings of processed prepackaged stuff available in a small inner city grocer. Have you ever heard of food deserts by the way? I would hope you'd be in support of national chains like Whole Foods going into places that have been plagued by lack of decent grocery offerings.

2) Why do you think it's better for a representative to live off taxpayer dollars by sleeping in their office, paying no utilities, taking advantage of the free cleaning service, instead of contributing to the economy by paying rent and utilities and hiring a housekeeper for their home? Sounds like entitlement to me.

1) grew up in NYC please tell me more about bodegas you fool

2) the office exists, the housekeeper will clean regardless, and the utilities are there no matter what.

They don’t cut the power to the unoccupied offices when the elected officials leave.

Elected officials are in DC maybe 85 days/nights per year, but would need to rent an appointment for 365.

Are there rules against sleeping in your office in DC? I don’t know if any. So I doubt people sleeping on air mattresses in their office are contributing to some kind of massive taxpayer drain.

Are you saying the officials who sleep in their office don't cause more water and more electricity to be used than if they didn't sleep there? Pretty specious. If you had a couple extra people in your household, do you not think your water and electricity bills would go up? And of course you are ignoring the extra work on the housekeepers to clean up. So typical of you cons, to ignore the reality of life for those on the bottom of the payscales.

Cost of Congressional Gyms Kept Secret

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/cost-congressional-gyms-secret/story%3fid=13859326

The House and Senate gymnasiums are taxpayer-subsidized perks shrouded in secrecy. The public and press are not allowed inside to even see what they look like and their costs are buried in various budgets.

The gyms are kept out of plain sight. There are no signs outside the doors and the only way to get inside is for members to get buzzed in.

Although ABC News was not allowed inside, those who have been admitted said they're both equipped with flat-screen TVs, workout machines and a swimming pool.

The costs for the gyms are well in excess of the $20 a month House members pay and the $40 a month senators are charged, congressional sources told ABC News. The membership fees are placed in an Architect of the Capitol revolving fund that covers equipment replacement or purchases.

Staffers who work at the House gym and maintain it are paid out of the House office buildings appropriations, while the power to heat the pools and keep the lights on is paid for from the power plant account as part of the Capitol complex.

Well I don’t think you are in the know as you claim if this bs is being paid for by taxpayers and you are outraged as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many junior members of congress share apartments given that they split time with their home districts.....that seems to be the normal housing strategy.

Can you provide evidence that she is not sharing her apartment? Why do posters keep making assumptions that have no basis?

Can you provide evidence she is sharing an apartment? No. And I cannot provide any evidence she isn’t.

But she is shopping at Whole Foods, which I find despicable after running Amazon out of NYC.

Why? She is contributing to the livelihoods of those who work there. Maybe you should talk to them about whether they want people shopping there or not.

Something she denied to the people of NYC.

Uh, they don't want it. Neither do we.

The majority wanted it in NYC

+100