- 7,629
- 13,458
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
But, once again. She didn’t pay? Not sure which part of that you don’t understand.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
But, once again. She didn’t pay? Not sure which part of that you don’t understand.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,179
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Who cares what she does in her free time though?
Something that genuinely fights for equality doesn't need to take some pledge of act in a certain way. Maybe if she was really flaunting her wealth in a truly offensive way I would care. But going to the Met Gala is not that.
She is ready and willing to vote on policy to help the poor and middle class, hell she is ready to raise her own taxes to help people too.
This logic seems to be the kind of stuff I hear about how Obama should not enjoy his wealth, or hang around rich people. Ignoring the fact that he tried his best to make large positive changes for people, but didn't have the power to do so.
- 31,946
- 26,252
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
and yet no Nancy Pelosi, prob no affordable care act.
so if she's bought by rich people she has a funny way of showing it.
- 15,298
- 7,686
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
No, I don’t think 125K is too much. But she’s not generating any other income due to her position?
The point I think I’ve been trying to get across, when the cost to attend the event (whether she paid for it herself or not) is more than the take home salary of your average American.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,179
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
This is dumb
Congressional salaries are probably too low, btw. A lot of government salaries are probably too low.
But AOC does a job, she gets compensated for it, how she chooses to spend her money, the money she earned with her labor, is her business.
- 15,298
- 7,686
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
So that warrants her to be worth 114 million?
- 31,946
- 26,252
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
her husband is rich?
and sure being the leader of house of representatives in the most powerful nation on earth helps
but there is no system you can set up, where being a politician in a powerful nation isn't going to help you in life.
- 54,331
- 143,288
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
Hilarious. Shoutout to them kids 
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,179
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
If Nancy Pelosi had her way she would give trillions of dollars to the middle and lower-class Americans. Straight outta the pockets of the wealthy
If Pelosi's version of the ACA was enacted, hundreds of thousands of lives would have probably been saved over what we got now. Definitely way more than a pre-ACA world. Ole girl used every ounce of political capital and power she had to push that through
That is what really matters.
You are falling for right-wing finesse. That Pelosi's wealth should be offensive in the face of rampant income inequality, ignoring the fact that conservatives are the ones blocking her from improving things for regular Americans.
Nancy Pelosi being rich is not the major problem, it is nowhere close to it.
- 9,746
- 10,579
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
People see “Tax the Rich” and lose the nuance in a lot things that are being proposed. There is a gigantic gap between common celebrity rich and the extreme wealth hoarding from the ppl at the top.
For example, the 10th richest person’s net worth is still 217x that of Justin Bieber’s estimated net worth. Literally just raising taxes on like 500 people would have a significant impact but instead people cape for them because somehow they think one day they’re going to be Bill Gates wealthy when the chance of them even making a million in a year is slim to none.
For example, the 10th richest person’s net worth is still 217x that of Justin Bieber’s estimated net worth. Literally just raising taxes on like 500 people would have a significant impact but instead people cape for them because somehow they think one day they’re going to be Bill Gates wealthy when the chance of them even making a million in a year is slim to none.
- 1,250
- 2,648
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2020
Well, you might want to place restrictions on their trading activities the way you might for, say, a first year analyst working deep in the back office of an investment bank.
- 15,298
- 7,686
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
Im sorry, I just don’t actually believe she wants to actually do any of that. Forgive me for being skeptical.
Maybe George Carlin radicalized me. “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
- 7,629
- 13,458
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
GG
s/o to Google BTW
Fact check: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's net worth is not close to $1 million
A claim that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has net worth of more than $1 million is false.
www.usatoday.com
s/o to Google BTW
- 31,946
- 26,252
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
....but...she did... it. are you a mind reader?
I understand politics encourages cynicism. don't let cynicism, fool you it believing contradictory things
- 31,946
- 26,252
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
sure
but fundamentally.
if you become an influential member of congress you will be rich eventually.
so fixating on AOC's net worth seems like a waste of time to me.
- 54,331
- 143,288
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
See…this is reasonable.
But you came in here sounding like diet Glenn Greenwald. Who has absolutely no smoke for ANY of the people doing the actual harm. He in facts, cozy’s up to them, takes money from them and spreads Mis information. Then spends his time trashing AOC.
Your post earlier, rang off with this type of sentiment. And that is what reactionaries do, and people are drawn to. Because a lot of it, is built in.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,179
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
She literally has voted for this stuff
The record of what was in the House ACA bill exists.
They are trying to get a reconciliation bill passed right now that has the potential to put childhood poverty in half. It will also expand Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Dems are already passing around facts sheets with the proposed tax increases. Pelosi is one of the people helping right it and trying to whip up the votes.
You being skeptical depends on you ignoring observable reality
And yeah, maybe the words of a comedic, no matter how good, shouldn't affect your worldview that much. It is not about being economic class and Pelosi. That is not the goal. Nancy Pelosi, and her money, are not the things standing in the way of a better America.
Last edited:
- 3,756
- 7,649
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
a1 television right here...
- 1,250
- 2,648
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2020
I don’t completely disagree with you, but I do think we can do more to stop some of the easier corruption.
Ultimately thresholds are subjective, but I’ll always question the legitimacy of 9 digit wealth. Behind every great fortune…
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,179
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
-All your rants about young progressives and Twitter is exactly that
Your months-long rant in hearing about people's supporting certain types of police reform is exactly that. Especially the accusation of in here that they just wanted some sort of revenge
You quoting people mad at Manchin to take issue with them being mad at Manchin is exactly that
You have negative reactions to other people's negative reactions, and that is fair. You have issues with why people are upset at things, and that's fair. This is a discussion forum after all.
But don't act like you don't pass judgment on how people deal with the current state of affairs. You clearly do.
-The issue is that you still defend Joe Manchin. You can say you disagree with him but you still use the fact he wins in WV as a cover for all his ****ery. Manchin did something ridiculous...welp it must help him win so we should get too mad. Gotta be thankful for him, for the Senate, and that must override some of the anger. But at the same time, when folk breaks down what pisses them off, you always want people to know you think he should act differently. So if you wish he would act differently, then the logic must follow that you think either a) It won't hurt his chances at reelection, or b) You think getting things done is the limited time frame Dems have is the most important consideration
Because if you concede Manchin should cut this nonsense out, then all you are doing is policing people's level of outrage at his ****ery. And strategically deploying considerations electoral consequences to in doing so.
Being thankful that Manchin won WV (hell I gave him money for this reelection campaign, Sinema too) because the alternative was way worse, and being extremely pissed off that their ridiculous and frankly dangerous politics are not mutually exclusive.
Your stance on Machin undermines your stance of performative politics. And you try to make that make sense with the, ummm West Virginia, stuff. But while doing so, it just makes clear your stance on performative politics is not as principled as you sometimes present it.
Last edited:
- 31,946
- 26,252
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
whoops
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,973
- 37,262
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- 7,629
- 13,458
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- 67,794
- 102,798
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Look how riled up the poor gets whenever messaging revolving around taxing the rich pop up. Rich folks stay winning without having to lift a finger.
- 15,298
- 7,686
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
Yawp
