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