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.

Stupid statement. I am no great fan of AOC but you simply do not know enough to make this statement. Navy Yard is close to the Hill, so she is being sensible. You also have no idea how much her rent is or her condo cost. Navy Yard is flooded with Hill staffers, so not all of it is expensive.

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.

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.

I love that line, especially the descriptor, transitioning. a PC term that means we kick the poor out b/c they get priced out
So instead of revitalizing a community by empowering those who've been part of the community for years - or even generations - we buy out buildings, make them fancy, and price them out so that the new hipsters can move in and claim they live in a "diverse" area.

She makes far too much money to qualify for public housing. not her fault, of course

But she's now part of the problem.

She could have lived "farther out," renting a house with two other roomies, no? taking public trans to work, yes?

But that wasn't her choice.

I wonder if she had to show her ID card when she checked out at WF.
If she was true salt of the earth she would have had it at the ready.

Anonymous wrote:she is all talk. problem is morons don't see it. they get played

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?