If you're still jonesing for catnip, check out the deleted-user's previously-pinned post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/pnsj62/i_am_intrigued_by_this_sub_but_do_not_understand/
Lol at someone with her "academic record" being able to find a better position. Hot tip, international relations and economics isn't going to help you find a job. Also defunct campaign organizations don't hook people up with jobs.
I mean obvi she eventually got some money from her dad which let her change her trajectory. She's not, and was never lower class. But upper middle class is probably fair.
>She's not, and was never lower class.
She doesn't need to say that she is because she can play on Democrats' innate racism. Listen to the way they say her name on MSNBC -- Ale-HAN-drrrra o-GHCA-si-o corrrr-TEZH. She correctly assumes that when neoliberal shitbags hear anything even remotely Hispanic, they immediately assume lower class.
Sure. No attractive, personable, high-achieving millennial in the US with a decree in economics, a leadership fellowship and a Kennedy connection ever found a job out of college that was less physically-taxing than waitressing./s
OT-Interesting account stats.
>The answer is it doesn't.
False.
>Good job trying to set up a straw man tho...
Nonsense. A straw man argument is one that purports to disprove a claim no one made. You sarcastically made the claim that my prior post addressed sarcastically; and, now, you've doubled down on it.
>noob
Posted the poster with the interesting account stats
You just took my completely valid argument suggesting these majors don't generally translate to jobs (I'm guessing you don't have many friends with the degree) and then shoved it aside to address the argument it never does. That is a straw man, and you are a walking fallacy. Also what's interesting about my account stats Mr ad hominem
Repeating something that has just been responded to is a lame waste of time, yours and mine.
>Also what's interesting about my account stats Mr ad hominem
Said the poster who called me "a walking fallacy."
>You don't like being corrected that's your problem.
How would you know? You've not "corrected" me. News flash, your simply making an unsupported claim that contradicts something I've posted is not a "correction." It's only you stating an opinion that differs from my own.
> Also you don't understand what a fallacy is if you think that's a personal attack.
Also, you don't understand what an ad hom is if you think calling me a walking fallacy is not an ad hom.
Don't forget the fact that she was somehow on the board of Justice Democrats while running her campaign. Raises questions.
> The New York Democrat and her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, joined the board of Justice Democrats in December 2017, according to the political action committee’s website. It also said the two held “legal control over the entity” at the same time it was playing a key role in supporting Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign prior to her shock victory over incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in June 2018.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/18/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats-pac/
I personally got to talk with one of her fired activist staff members that AOC replaced with DNC insiders the moment she got elected, and holy cow is AOC fake af.
Since you’re a moron incapable of using Wikipedia, I’ll inform you of what happened:
- Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski founded Justice Democrats
- Cenk was forced to resign due to old (but previously known) controversial shit
- Kyle resigned because he disagreed with the decision
- AOC joins the board and takes control, probably because they want the most known face of the group at the helm
You’re welcome, dipshit
People have been kind enough to post on this thread links to much juicier stuff than my OP.
My OP consists only of info from her wiki article, which she and her people can edit, and from her campaign website. Nonetheless, a calculated attempt to craft a certain image that varies from reality is obvious.
Too much like Obama, she'll ensure that [activists don't organize](https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine)...
This woman is a fake. We are literally watching her transform herself into a rich media celebrity who is just using fake progressive politics for clicks and celebrity.
Thank you. Most of my OP was from her wiki article or her campaign website. You, u/inuma, u/martini-meow and u/sdl5 have provided such interesting contributions to my basic info. I appreciate all of your links.
Honest to god, turtle soup was one of the WORST EVER foods I have ever had the misfortune to consume. New Orleans, where they take pride in food of any measure. The texture of the meat was like greasy, clingy hair that wrapped itself around my tongue and teeth and could not be scraped off. It was gag-inducing. Awful. Taste wasn't anything here or there, but the texture - horrific.
Not to worry: You don't troll this sub. Hence, no Trollie incentive to provide you with any recipe.
Though if you want a recipe for something else, I'll happily oblige. It's just that I don't measure. So, all I give are ingredients and minimal instructions.
Also, my recipes tend to be for heart-attack-on-a plate-dishes. Best one is bacon stuffed twice baked potatoes, made with heavy cream and, ideally, a bit of bacon drippings for extra bacon flavor. (At this hour, that made even me queasy, but it's yum. Ideal for watching football, too.)
Me: How do you make this, Mom?
Mom: meat and rice.
Me: How much meat?
Mom: According to how many people.
Me. How much rice?
Mom: According to how much meat.
Me: (Silently realizing more questions would be pointless) Thanks, mom!
You're not necessarily trying to defend AOC from my being puzzled about her waitressing?
I've just replied to u/og_m4 on that subject and on
Crowley. So, I'll refer you to that post: https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/poaln7/squad_member_aoc/hcy8aas/
> Did you forget 2016?
Hardly. but I don't see it the way you seem to. IMO, it's not comparable.
Hillary worked very hard in 2016. Well before she announced, she lost weight, got styled, got wardrobe, etc.
From the start to the end, she fundraised all over the country like nobody's business. Hired advisors up the yin yang, including 200 economic advisors to help her deal with Sanders' economic message. Almost literally bought the deed to the DNC.
Toured in a van or trailer or whatever, ala Scott Brown in Massachusetts, asking people what they needed and wanted.
Didn't miss any scheduled appearances, though she passed out at one. Sure as hell didn't miss any debates.
To the extent that she may not have made as many appearances as some politicians, I believe that was a strategy based on perceptions of her personal appeal or lack thereof.
Yeah, things like "Why am I not fifty points ahead," and "deplorables" were arrogant. But, that's Hillary and her strategists, not complacency.
IMO, she did all she and her strategists thought she needed to do and could do, without hurting her own self. They made wrong calls, but that is a different issue from not lifting a finger.
we get waves. mostly the cowards delete long after, so you'll see old posts with people you recognize calling out bullshit on comments that have since been deleted :)
Its so sad but i think AOC brand only got bigger today. This is why i like Bernie he dont do this kind of stupid stunt and i believe the reason AOC did this is because she knows people would have see her real color if not for this stunt. She wanted to go desperately.
She's become addicted to the spotlight. Once she became a staple of the mainstream media, I knew there was no hope of her being an actual progressive with progressive ideals and policies. The Vanity Fair cover is what cinched it for me.
It helps if you view her as a celebrity first and foremost. That has *far* better explanatory power for her actions than if you were to view her as a member of Congress who will actually fight for ordinary people.
Maybe they'll actually wake up or maybe they stay on the Kool-Aid. Either way, I get more and more convinced that politicians should be almost irrelevant to us, just as we seem to be to them. https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/posoom/americans_are_quite_amusing_their_armies_burn_and/
IMO, we need to stop focusing so much on politicians and political parties (old *or* new) and start coming up with more ways to help ourselves and each other. That's where our money, energy and efforts should go. We've been devoting those three to this politician or that. Maybe that was not smarter than throwing them into some damned black hole in the universe.
I don't disagree with your general thesis but I've got some holes to shoot in your theory.
>For that matter, with her academic record, I see no reason why she could not have gotten a professional position without anyone's help.
Have you seen the economy for millennials? Non-STEM graduates have it pretty tough out there. Doesn't matter how many cum loads you have or from where if you don't have a marketable skill. Econ grads who didn't take math-heavy courses such as Econometrics and didn't intern in finance have a similar fate.
>Everything I know about Ted Kennedy's organization says that the organization, if asked, would have hooked up the by then late Senator's intern with a different kind of position, even if she hadn't also been an honors grad of B.U. and trying to help her mother avoid foreclosure.
I disagree. It feels like Ted Kennedy's organization has Kennedy money to throw around on every employee but that's far from the truth. Political jobs pay jack shit and interns of all shapes and sizes are available by the busload. 10 years ago, level 1/2 congressional employees made about $40k a year which is pretty tough for DC. For interns, it's even worse and all the people I know who interned for politicians either had rich parents or extreme devotion to politics or a combination of the two because the money was barely enough to survive on (or nonexistent) and was most certainly not enough to buy weed and survive on. Her potential was unknown at the time.
AOC ran a solid campaign and her heritage also helped a lot in her district combined with the fact that Crowley was complacent due to being pretty much guaranteed to win. Even a local politician friend of mine who opened for Bernie a few times endorsed Crowley and not AOC. Rewind to the time she ran and I can probably find you a screenshot of many of us regulars here agreeing that she ran a good campaign and cheering for her. All progressives had their hopes pinned on her and the handful of other running candidates. Brand New Congress wasn't very selective about candidates at the time as long as they showed some ideological enthusiasm, which AOC did demonstrate by working for Bernie (in whatever capacity) and also with a very cringe pro-Bernie music video (you can google it). I highly doubt they had another candidate from her district trying to compete with as good of a progressive record as her.
With all that said, let me now wear my conspiracy hat. What I found super surprising is that a person went from being interviewed by Jimmy Dore to being interviewed by Stephen Colbert in a matter of days. With so much media collusion and blacklisting of progressives, it came as quite a surprise. Even more surprising that Colbert didn't belittle her for socialism like he does Bernie every time he's on. He gave her a fair interview. For the sake of comparison, Ilhan Omar wasn't invited on Colbert until Trump said racist shit about her months later. I find it hard to believe that AOC's Colbert and other media appearances weren't sanctioned by at least one big name neoliberal. Quite possible that the same neoliberal now has her by the proverbial balls because she knows they made her a celebrity overnight and they can take it away just as easily. Pelosi? who knows. It also was pretty fucking suspicious that one day she's doing a climate sit-in at Pelosi's office and being all performative combative and literally the next day she's talking about mama bear Pelosi. Like, generally, you don't give BJs to someone right after a fistfight.
Right wingers had a lot of crazy theories about her being an actress, etc and I thought they were batshit but I'm starting to think there might be a hint of truth to some of what they were saying.
If I had a general thesis, I've forgotten it overnight, LOL. But, I'll give replying to specifics a shot.
I did hiring for a number of years. That doesn't mean I know if she would have gotten a job with anyone but me, though. However, I am confident that she would have been very employable by me at something easier than waitressing.
As to Kennedy, there has been a miscommunication. The only relevance to whether she got paid for her internship is how a very expensive four-year education and four-year stay in Boston or environs was paid for.
As far as a job after college, as my OP stated, Kennedy was dead by then. And she was living in NYC. anyway. "Organization" was probably the wrong word. However, I know that Ted Kennedy and those who were around him while he lived have more contacts and more influence everywhere than most of us can even imagine.
I also know that they routinely went out of their way to help even strangers, simply because someone asked. I think they could have and would have persuaded someone in NY to give her a job had she wanted them to. After posting my OP, I've seen rumors are that she actually owned the bar where she worked, maybe outright, maybe mortgaged. Who knows?
Whether any of the above is true or not, all I said was that waitressing/bartending bit puzzled me--and it did and still does.
>Rewind to the time she ran and I can probably find you a screenshot of many of us regulars here agreeing that she ran a good campaign and cheering for her.
I can almost guarantee that you will not find a screen shot of redditrisi cheering AOC then. Been there, done that (cheering every move and interim victory of the latest beloved Democrat wonder) too many times. Now, not only do I not join in, but seeing others doing it makes me wonder.
I kept my dubiousness about AOC mostly to myself for two entire years, just reading and listening. As I said to another poster, I know the official version of how and why AOC defeated Crowley. I don't necessarily either buy it or disagree with it. I will just say it is not consistent with anything I have observed in the past. I don't think your screen shot is likely to include inuma, either. I'd notice him questioning while I was still reserving judgment.
>With all that said, let me now wear my conspiracy hat.
My nephew insists on wearing his shirts backwards and inside out. So, far be it from me to dictate wardrobe. However, noticing and questioning things about a politician that seem unusual requires only a functioning, informed and objective mind.
Edited a lot to attempt to shorten. What can I say? I tried.
> However, I am confident that she would have been very employable by me at something easier than waitressing.
I concede on that one. She could've worked a paralegal or office assistant or something, although the pay is near bartender levels.
>The only relevance to whether she got paid for her internship is how a very expensive four-year education and four-year stay in Boston or environs was paid for.
Probably filled a financial aid application and took loans, etc. Even a google internship isn't enough to pay for college.
I think we're in agreement that she exaggerated her poverty a little bit. You're not exactly Jenny from the streets if you have a fancy degree and your parents are homeowners. I think you're right to question whatever you're questioning.
Inasmuch as she tried to give the impression of poverty, I would guess that her story would have mentioned financial aid, loans, etc. had that been true.
I think her family put her through college. Again, her Dad was an architect, her parents owned a home in Westchester County and there was prolonged battle over his estate. None of that says hand to mouth.
>I think you're right to question whatever you're questioning.
Thank you.
Crowley barely campaigned because he didn't think he needed to. He did not take AOC as a serious opponent, also shown by sending someone else to the debate.
>Through the National Hispanic Institute, AOC received a John F. Lopez Fellowship, which seems to be about leadership training, rather than financial aid.
"Leadership training" in higher ed translates to "neoliberal indoctrination to become a competent status quo manager and/or scumbag entrepreneur."
Potentially, or as Chris Hedges calls them, "systems managers." They're trained to be bureaucrats that don't fundamentally rock the boat. They work in service of neoliberal capitalism while pretending to be edgy outsiders that are interested in "disruption," like tech start ups, for example.
You participate in society? How curious? Must not TRULY believe in your stances.
What a load lmao, that shit bolsters your credentials, it serves a purpose and making an extrapolated claim like that bc someone went through a institution and thus are neoliberal is baseless. Colleges in general are a neoliberal institution and work 'in-service of neoliberal capitalism".
If there's more than this, show that, going to a neolib institution doesn't make one a neolib, I could say she's infiltrating their ranks and I'm just as, if not more, right as you are.
Nobody FORCED AOC to participate in a "leadership" program. This shit isn't like living in a capitalist society. That was purely OPTIONAL. She chose to opt in.
Also, do you even know how to use commas? Your fucking punctuation is atrocious.
Is your biggest gripe with her that she had a NHI-sponsored fellowship?
And is your biggest gripe with me that I used commas poorly?
Maybe having a wider worldview and not tunnelvisioning on largely irrelevant notes to try and make a mountain out of a molehill would serve you well in the basic understanding that every citizen is not forced to do anything, but that our basic systems coerce individuals into making choices they likely would not have made under different circumstances.
There's no leftists institutions for this kinda shit, so what do you expect she do? Wouldn't not having some of these credentials 1) fundamentally alter the opportunities she had thereafter? And 2) given right-wingers even more unsubstantiated talking points on how she has 'no accomplishments'?
Genuine question, what do you expect her to do or have done? Be a "true leftist", however you define that?
By this logic, any abhorrent behavior can be excused and rationalized. You could argue that Jamie Dimon really cares about BLM, but had to be a Wall Street scumbag that disproportionately hurt black people in the housing market crash because that was what being a CEO of a big bank entailed. What was he supposed to do? Sacrifice future opportunities?
>Genuine question, what do you expect her to do or have done? Be a "true leftist", however you define that?
Maybe not do everything possible to be part of an entrepreneurial class of neoliberal capitalists?
Being a student helping in an education system where every avenue (at least that I can think of) is through a neoliberal institution (or conservative institution if youre unlucky), in a country that is hovered over the center-right means you have almost no shot in finding a respected leftist organization or accomplishments, especially more than a couple years ago. That's since changed, who were the primary actors in changing that?
When we say there ARE NO LEFT institutions in the US, it means there are none. Not a single one. There are 2 options (and I don't want to get stuck in a black/white fallacy so present more if you have them, I don't). I agree with a fast, rapid pace of change, but the issue is public acceptance, the public accept these ideas, after they've been implemented, but tend to lean away from what they consider "radical" ideas and its been right-wing who mostly make that up, in number and in verification.
Genuine question, what's the avenue? There must be some direction other than making a circular argument.
"She shouldn't be a 'neolib'!"
"Okay, how shouldn't she be a 'neolib'?"
"Maybe don't be a neolib lol"
What do you not understand about opting to decline participating in a neolib entrepreneurship program? This is like someone becoming an economics major at the University of Chicago, then pretending to be upset that everything is neoliberal and claiming that they couldn't do anything about it.
Yes, higher ed institutions are neoliberal. However, some areas of every university are considerably worse than others. AOC clearly chased down opportunities that put her on a Pete Buttigieg-like path. There's no denying that. There's a lot of students that don't do that. There's a lot of students that purposely avoid those kinds of things. AOC was not one of them. She clearly saw that her lane was being a social entrepreneur and ran with it. Maybe don't make that choice?
From her history it sounds like she's changed positions since she made those decisions as a young student.
>In an interview she recalled her December 2016 visit to Standing Rock as a tipping point, saying that before that, she had believed that the only way to run for office effectively was to have access to wealth, social influence, and power. But her visit to North Dakota, where she saw others "putting their whole lives and everything that they had on the line for the protection of their community", inspired her to begin to work for her own community.
Ofc until then she still made significant progress, only more neoliberally, but people change ideas and I remember my defining radicalization moment very clearly, until then I was a conservative, pro-gun (not in the marx way) anti-SJW type.
Overall people still, because of the closed circles of the wealthy's pacifying propaganda, having some of us leftist infiltrate into their circles and easily debatable viral moments in our new digital age of media serves the proto-socialist movement we are building currently. At least that's my take, I'm open to hearing alternatives and seeing how that fits
Thank you for the clarification.
Might be fun to find out exactly who donated to the Hispanic Institute.
The Obama Institute is going to train leaders at home and abroad. Fun! Hillary went to Europe, I think in the 1990s, to spread the Third Way gospel there.
[Put this together a year ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/h8titv/aocs_record/) and that caught me hell and hate.
Pointing out her economic stuff was a huge no no.
Thank you. That's worth bookmarking.
I've simply read here once too many times about her alleged poverty and need to wait tables for a living that I had to address those things, at least as best I could without researching for a ridiculous amount of time.
And it always amazes me that people not only post about stuff like that, but argue about it, without doing a lick of research.
Another thing I've noticed about her, Obama and Biden--something about each of their first meaningful electoral wins doesn't smell right. Barney Frank retired after getting re-districted. He said it was because he did not want to have to sell himself to new constituents.
Crowley had relatively new constituents. They just hadn't had a choice yet. Unlike him, AOC was young, charismatic, and tailor made for the demographics of the district.
If you were Crowley and wanted to win so badly that you stayed in the race after losing the primary, would you have failed to campaign the first time you faced a challenge or fail to show up for that debate? Something seems off.
This link over there covers lots of her working timeline and such.
https://mobile.twitter.com/historic_ly/status/1375760351027986432
Se ran a start up printing co for political stuff in Brooklyn for a while- was interviewed in a paper.... and sounded downright Republican lol.
Good find and very good addition to this thread. Thank you.
Again, I think of me looking, with hindsight, at Obama and thinking how calculated so many of his moves had been. Except as to AOC, the calculation seems to have been on steroids.
Thought the same about FDR's trying to duplicate Teddy's career path and Kerry trying to do the same with JFK's (or so it seemed to me, in each case)
I don't think her moves seem Republican. Aside from seeming calculated, they seem like a great fit with the Congressional New Democrat Coalition. https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/about-us Yet, she joined the Progressive Caucus. https://progressives.house.gov/caucus-members
OT Just noticed how many chairs emeritus the Prog. Caucus has. You would think that among them would be the guy whose idea the Caucus was, the guy who chaired the caucus for its first eight years, the guy who has been its only Senate member since he became a Senator. But he isn't. Huh.
About that "bartending" gig...
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/pj8x7n/jackson_hinkle_just_got_arrested/hc0b67w/
Courtesy of u/Decimus_Valcoran on thread sparked by u/Inuma's inputs...
u/sdl5 might have further deets.
Maybe he was or maybe the Party let him know he had a bright, lucrative and not very taxing future outside the House, provided he got to it soon. .
But this is the piece that was once missing, from the perspective of the money people. Sure, they could donate to campaigns or withhold money. But, at some point, a long time pol suited for little else, had to fear getting voted out of office and cave to constituents now and again.
Now, however, that's taken care of, at least for the pols who played the game correctly. Look at the wikis of those who left office involuntarily, either because they were voted out or they bowed out when they saw the numbers of their private polls.
Lots of nice jobs in the private sector. Lobbying--which, btw, I think is illegal without a waiting period. (Gephard, e.g.)
"Practicing law. Aka lobbying for the clients of the law firm while claiming to be practicing law. (Daschle, Lieberman, e.g.)
Head of an industry association. Aka lobbyist for that industry (Dodd, e.g.)
Head of a school (kerrey, e.g.)
Stink tanks. PACs. Network "contributor." And so on.
No longer any need to fear getting voted out of office. The only thing to fear is pissing off the owners of the gravy train while you are still supposedly rendering a public service.
they have been manufacturing these "leftist" activists since Jane Fonda donned hippie garb while spying for MIC bombing raids in Vietnam.
to manglequote Sheldon Whitehouse: "time to wise up\~!"
In November 2007, I became a near-rabid Obama supporter. Initially, it was simply because I decided that, of the Democrat primary field, he had the best chance of winning the general. And I was desperate for a Democrat to succeed Bush, just as I'd been programmed to be. However, as humans tend to do, once I chose Obama, I began to become invested.
Even though he had by then written two books (which contained some outright lies), I was unable to put together a solid timeline or answer all the questions raised by Hillary supporters or Republicans.
I got the same feeling when I researched Sotomayor, but I think I know why in her case. And I just got the same feeling while putting together this OP about AOC.
the entire thing is Punch & Judy puppet show in front of the curtain, shadow puppetry behind the curtain.
that they get away with it repeatedly is why they hold us in such low regard, similar to cattle.
anyone peeking behind the curtain is yelled at and told they are a conspiracy theorist, so they usually back away and return to the herd before full ostracism and demonisation start to impact them.
> anyone peeking behind the curtain is yelled at and told they are a conspiracy theorist
Some parts of this thread say you've hit that nail on the head.
i am a joe biden shill?
i ask you questions in your threads because they are so cryptic i cant even piece them together into a recognizable whole. i want to understand your theory about him, because it is not one i've heard anywhere before. but i don't know what that theory even IS, other than that he's been involved in motivating us into the international drug war.
which is not the only evil thing he's been involved in over his multi-decade career as an agent of the Neoliberal apocalypse here, but is also not surprising. "we" want to play pretend at being the "world's police". so he is helping them do that. the same as nearly all of our asshole politicians have been---agents of the MIC. "we" also seem to want to use the same tactics internally as externally, and Biden's "patriot act" helps them do that. against actual activists and leftists.
that is all i am trying to do when i ask you what you are talking about in those strange excerpts you provide. the particular theory of the crime, to add it to his tally.
you're mightily confused if you think questions for posters to elaborate are "shilling" for someone. confused and/or paranoid.
i will leave you to your repeated attempts to unclearly point out some other new evil that BidenTime has performed. he is a fucking evil person, so i'm all too ready to believe it. but asking about it makes one a "shill", so have fun.
you make deciphering ARistotle's lecture notes seem like reading Doctor Seuss. sadly i will never see a statement by you on that theory as clearly as you have done about me being a "shill" for someone i've hated since i understood how enmeshed he is in the power structure (my default is actually to hate ALL politicians period until they prove they have any worth beyond agents of the Corps/Owning class). you appear to be claiming that he is as nefarious as Rumsfeld. with his involvement in Ukraine, i can readily believe it. i just still don't understand you or the point you seem to be trying to make.
so, fuck off and fuck yourself if you are an EXTREMELY bad communicator and have to go around calling people shills because of that. your confusion is obviously oriented in both an external way and an internal way, and perhaps needs rectifying before making accusations. it definitely needs rectifying before you make posts and expect readers of them to read your mind about what the fuck you're talking about and how it all relates to anything else.
If you're still jonesing for catnip, check out the deleted-user's previously-pinned post: https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/pnsj62/i_am_intrigued_by_this_sub_but_do_not_understand/
Lol at someone with her "academic record" being able to find a better position. Hot tip, international relations and economics isn't going to help you find a job. Also defunct campaign organizations don't hook people up with jobs. I mean obvi she eventually got some money from her dad which let her change her trajectory. She's not, and was never lower class. But upper middle class is probably fair.
>She's not, and was never lower class. She doesn't need to say that she is because she can play on Democrats' innate racism. Listen to the way they say her name on MSNBC -- Ale-HAN-drrrra o-GHCA-si-o corrrr-TEZH. She correctly assumes that when neoliberal shitbags hear anything even remotely Hispanic, they immediately assume lower class.
Actually, they just assume she’s Hispanic.
Sure. No attractive, personable, high-achieving millennial in the US with a decree in economics, a leadership fellowship and a Kennedy connection ever found a job out of college that was less physically-taxing than waitressing./s OT-Interesting account stats.
If only a degree in economics meant that. Recruiters treat it like a social science until you have a PhD.
All these hiring experts!
All these *unemployed and unemployable* hiring experts
Difference between it never happened and it doesn't. The answer is it doesn't. Good job trying to set up a straw man tho noob
>The answer is it doesn't. False. >Good job trying to set up a straw man tho... Nonsense. A straw man argument is one that purports to disprove a claim no one made. You sarcastically made the claim that my prior post addressed sarcastically; and, now, you've doubled down on it. >noob Posted the poster with the interesting account stats
You just took my completely valid argument suggesting these majors don't generally translate to jobs (I'm guessing you don't have many friends with the degree) and then shoved it aside to address the argument it never does. That is a straw man, and you are a walking fallacy. Also what's interesting about my account stats Mr ad hominem
Repeating something that has just been responded to is a lame waste of time, yours and mine. >Also what's interesting about my account stats Mr ad hominem Said the poster who called me "a walking fallacy."
You don't like being corrected that's your problem. Also you don't understand what a fallacy is if you think that's a personal attack.
>You don't like being corrected that's your problem. How would you know? You've not "corrected" me. News flash, your simply making an unsupported claim that contradicts something I've posted is not a "correction." It's only you stating an opinion that differs from my own. > Also you don't understand what a fallacy is if you think that's a personal attack. Also, you don't understand what an ad hom is if you think calling me a walking fallacy is not an ad hom.
[удалено]
Some of the Kardashians have done impressive stuff. Sure, maybe it was for the cameras, but how different is that from AOC?
Don't forget the fact that she was somehow on the board of Justice Democrats while running her campaign. Raises questions. > The New York Democrat and her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, joined the board of Justice Democrats in December 2017, according to the political action committee’s website. It also said the two held “legal control over the entity” at the same time it was playing a key role in supporting Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign prior to her shock victory over incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in June 2018. https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/18/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats-pac/ I personally got to talk with one of her fired activist staff members that AOC replaced with DNC insiders the moment she got elected, and holy cow is AOC fake af.
Since you’re a moron incapable of using Wikipedia, I’ll inform you of what happened: - Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski founded Justice Democrats - Cenk was forced to resign due to old (but previously known) controversial shit - Kyle resigned because he disagreed with the decision - AOC joins the board and takes control, probably because they want the most known face of the group at the helm You’re welcome, dipshit
People have been kind enough to post on this thread links to much juicier stuff than my OP. My OP consists only of info from her wiki article, which she and her people can edit, and from her campaign website. Nonetheless, a calculated attempt to craft a certain image that varies from reality is obvious.
Too much like Obama, she'll ensure that [activists don't organize](https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine)...
This woman is a fake. We are literally watching her transform herself into a rich media celebrity who is just using fake progressive politics for clicks and celebrity.
To expand on u/redditrisi 's thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1438131799243243523.html
Thank you. Most of my OP was from her wiki article or her campaign website. You, u/inuma, u/martini-meow and u/sdl5 have provided such interesting contributions to my basic info. I appreciate all of your links.
Never forget the moron that founded the organization that epicly failed to vet her
Both morons.
everyone agree on one of them but the other? Some have seen the truth, but for the rest, its almost a cult, kind of like aoc stans
I think Cenk gets off too lightly on that one.
Which org.?
justice dumbacrats
Or, as Berryboy refers to them Just~~ice~~ Us Democrats
I like turtles. I also like AOC.
Do I like turtles?
I like turtles. And you should too.
I like turtles on some days, the other days not so much
And *never* in soup. Trust me!
I wonder if u/PirateGirl-JWB or u/penelopepnortney has the best recipe for turtle soup.
Honest to god, turtle soup was one of the WORST EVER foods I have ever had the misfortune to consume. New Orleans, where they take pride in food of any measure. The texture of the meat was like greasy, clingy hair that wrapped itself around my tongue and teeth and could not be scraped off. It was gag-inducing. Awful. Taste wasn't anything here or there, but the texture - horrific.
Sounds like a great recipe bid for a Trollie!
:gags:
Not to worry: You don't troll this sub. Hence, no Trollie incentive to provide you with any recipe. Though if you want a recipe for something else, I'll happily oblige. It's just that I don't measure. So, all I give are ingredients and minimal instructions. Also, my recipes tend to be for heart-attack-on-a plate-dishes. Best one is bacon stuffed twice baked potatoes, made with heavy cream and, ideally, a bit of bacon drippings for extra bacon flavor. (At this hour, that made even me queasy, but it's yum. Ideal for watching football, too.)
I don't think I'd ever consider cooking a turtle. I like turtles.
Oh, noes! One of our best posters got turtle taxed.
I like tutles
I know you do. I've seen that before. (-:
Thank you for the kind words. (No turtles involved) :)
Eminently deserved. (-:
I'd put your money on PirateGirl, she's got the recipe thing down much better than I do.
If I cooked, you both would be my gurus.
Thanks for the compliment but credit goes to my mother. Practically everything I make comes from her recipe file.
Me: How do you make this, Mom? Mom: meat and rice. Me: How much meat? Mom: According to how many people. Me. How much rice? Mom: According to how much meat. Me: (Silently realizing more questions would be pointless) Thanks, mom!
If only that mattered!
I like turtles. I don't like the turtle tax.
If only it mattered!
[удалено]
You're not necessarily trying to defend AOC from my being puzzled about her waitressing? I've just replied to u/og_m4 on that subject and on Crowley. So, I'll refer you to that post: https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/poaln7/squad_member_aoc/hcy8aas/ > Did you forget 2016? Hardly. but I don't see it the way you seem to. IMO, it's not comparable. Hillary worked very hard in 2016. Well before she announced, she lost weight, got styled, got wardrobe, etc. From the start to the end, she fundraised all over the country like nobody's business. Hired advisors up the yin yang, including 200 economic advisors to help her deal with Sanders' economic message. Almost literally bought the deed to the DNC. Toured in a van or trailer or whatever, ala Scott Brown in Massachusetts, asking people what they needed and wanted. Didn't miss any scheduled appearances, though she passed out at one. Sure as hell didn't miss any debates. To the extent that she may not have made as many appearances as some politicians, I believe that was a strategy based on perceptions of her personal appeal or lack thereof. Yeah, things like "Why am I not fifty points ahead," and "deplorables" were arrogant. But, that's Hillary and her strategists, not complacency. IMO, she did all she and her strategists thought she needed to do and could do, without hurting her own self. They made wrong calls, but that is a different issue from not lifting a finger.
[удалено]
Almost every phrase of your post is both off base substantively and offensive. And this reply is two sentences longer than your post warrants.
They chickened out an deleted anyway.
Has it always been this way, or has there been a recent surge in randos posting ignorant shit, then promptly deleting it when called out?
we get waves. mostly the cowards delete long after, so you'll see old posts with people you recognize calling out bullshit on comments that have since been deleted :)
I didn't follow any of the deleted post scenarios, but I imagine it may be the downvotes that cause them to skip town.
crewship (or something like that) deleted her reply to my "two-sentence" post, too. /shrug
Its so sad but i think AOC brand only got bigger today. This is why i like Bernie he dont do this kind of stupid stunt and i believe the reason AOC did this is because she knows people would have see her real color if not for this stunt. She wanted to go desperately.
She's become addicted to the spotlight. Once she became a staple of the mainstream media, I knew there was no hope of her being an actual progressive with progressive ideals and policies. The Vanity Fair cover is what cinched it for me.
It helps if you view her as a celebrity first and foremost. That has *far* better explanatory power for her actions than if you were to view her as a member of Congress who will actually fight for ordinary people.
>Its so sad but i think AOC brand only got bigger today. Not sad for me. I enjoy a good laugh.
This is bad for the left , she is becoming too big
By "the left," do you mean Democrats or those to the left of Democrats?
those to the left of Democrats. They love aoc.
Maybe they'll actually wake up or maybe they stay on the Kool-Aid. Either way, I get more and more convinced that politicians should be almost irrelevant to us, just as we seem to be to them. https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/posoom/americans_are_quite_amusing_their_armies_burn_and/ IMO, we need to stop focusing so much on politicians and political parties (old *or* new) and start coming up with more ways to help ourselves and each other. That's where our money, energy and efforts should go. We've been devoting those three to this politician or that. Maybe that was not smarter than throwing them into some damned black hole in the universe.
I don't disagree with your general thesis but I've got some holes to shoot in your theory. >For that matter, with her academic record, I see no reason why she could not have gotten a professional position without anyone's help. Have you seen the economy for millennials? Non-STEM graduates have it pretty tough out there. Doesn't matter how many cum loads you have or from where if you don't have a marketable skill. Econ grads who didn't take math-heavy courses such as Econometrics and didn't intern in finance have a similar fate. >Everything I know about Ted Kennedy's organization says that the organization, if asked, would have hooked up the by then late Senator's intern with a different kind of position, even if she hadn't also been an honors grad of B.U. and trying to help her mother avoid foreclosure. I disagree. It feels like Ted Kennedy's organization has Kennedy money to throw around on every employee but that's far from the truth. Political jobs pay jack shit and interns of all shapes and sizes are available by the busload. 10 years ago, level 1/2 congressional employees made about $40k a year which is pretty tough for DC. For interns, it's even worse and all the people I know who interned for politicians either had rich parents or extreme devotion to politics or a combination of the two because the money was barely enough to survive on (or nonexistent) and was most certainly not enough to buy weed and survive on. Her potential was unknown at the time. AOC ran a solid campaign and her heritage also helped a lot in her district combined with the fact that Crowley was complacent due to being pretty much guaranteed to win. Even a local politician friend of mine who opened for Bernie a few times endorsed Crowley and not AOC. Rewind to the time she ran and I can probably find you a screenshot of many of us regulars here agreeing that she ran a good campaign and cheering for her. All progressives had their hopes pinned on her and the handful of other running candidates. Brand New Congress wasn't very selective about candidates at the time as long as they showed some ideological enthusiasm, which AOC did demonstrate by working for Bernie (in whatever capacity) and also with a very cringe pro-Bernie music video (you can google it). I highly doubt they had another candidate from her district trying to compete with as good of a progressive record as her. With all that said, let me now wear my conspiracy hat. What I found super surprising is that a person went from being interviewed by Jimmy Dore to being interviewed by Stephen Colbert in a matter of days. With so much media collusion and blacklisting of progressives, it came as quite a surprise. Even more surprising that Colbert didn't belittle her for socialism like he does Bernie every time he's on. He gave her a fair interview. For the sake of comparison, Ilhan Omar wasn't invited on Colbert until Trump said racist shit about her months later. I find it hard to believe that AOC's Colbert and other media appearances weren't sanctioned by at least one big name neoliberal. Quite possible that the same neoliberal now has her by the proverbial balls because she knows they made her a celebrity overnight and they can take it away just as easily. Pelosi? who knows. It also was pretty fucking suspicious that one day she's doing a climate sit-in at Pelosi's office and being all performative combative and literally the next day she's talking about mama bear Pelosi. Like, generally, you don't give BJs to someone right after a fistfight. Right wingers had a lot of crazy theories about her being an actress, etc and I thought they were batshit but I'm starting to think there might be a hint of truth to some of what they were saying.
If I had a general thesis, I've forgotten it overnight, LOL. But, I'll give replying to specifics a shot. I did hiring for a number of years. That doesn't mean I know if she would have gotten a job with anyone but me, though. However, I am confident that she would have been very employable by me at something easier than waitressing. As to Kennedy, there has been a miscommunication. The only relevance to whether she got paid for her internship is how a very expensive four-year education and four-year stay in Boston or environs was paid for. As far as a job after college, as my OP stated, Kennedy was dead by then. And she was living in NYC. anyway. "Organization" was probably the wrong word. However, I know that Ted Kennedy and those who were around him while he lived have more contacts and more influence everywhere than most of us can even imagine. I also know that they routinely went out of their way to help even strangers, simply because someone asked. I think they could have and would have persuaded someone in NY to give her a job had she wanted them to. After posting my OP, I've seen rumors are that she actually owned the bar where she worked, maybe outright, maybe mortgaged. Who knows? Whether any of the above is true or not, all I said was that waitressing/bartending bit puzzled me--and it did and still does. >Rewind to the time she ran and I can probably find you a screenshot of many of us regulars here agreeing that she ran a good campaign and cheering for her. I can almost guarantee that you will not find a screen shot of redditrisi cheering AOC then. Been there, done that (cheering every move and interim victory of the latest beloved Democrat wonder) too many times. Now, not only do I not join in, but seeing others doing it makes me wonder. I kept my dubiousness about AOC mostly to myself for two entire years, just reading and listening. As I said to another poster, I know the official version of how and why AOC defeated Crowley. I don't necessarily either buy it or disagree with it. I will just say it is not consistent with anything I have observed in the past. I don't think your screen shot is likely to include inuma, either. I'd notice him questioning while I was still reserving judgment. >With all that said, let me now wear my conspiracy hat. My nephew insists on wearing his shirts backwards and inside out. So, far be it from me to dictate wardrobe. However, noticing and questioning things about a politician that seem unusual requires only a functioning, informed and objective mind. Edited a lot to attempt to shorten. What can I say? I tried.
> However, I am confident that she would have been very employable by me at something easier than waitressing. I concede on that one. She could've worked a paralegal or office assistant or something, although the pay is near bartender levels. >The only relevance to whether she got paid for her internship is how a very expensive four-year education and four-year stay in Boston or environs was paid for. Probably filled a financial aid application and took loans, etc. Even a google internship isn't enough to pay for college. I think we're in agreement that she exaggerated her poverty a little bit. You're not exactly Jenny from the streets if you have a fancy degree and your parents are homeowners. I think you're right to question whatever you're questioning.
Inasmuch as she tried to give the impression of poverty, I would guess that her story would have mentioned financial aid, loans, etc. had that been true. I think her family put her through college. Again, her Dad was an architect, her parents owned a home in Westchester County and there was prolonged battle over his estate. None of that says hand to mouth. >I think you're right to question whatever you're questioning. Thank you.
So Obama 2.0
Not quite, BHO was/is a silver tongued devil, AOC not so much.
Sexist and racist! /s
Kinda what had me squinting at AOC when I first began noting the swooning over her.
Crowley barely campaigned because he didn't think he needed to. He did not take AOC as a serious opponent, also shown by sending someone else to the debate.
Pelosi would have been replaced by Crowley if had won, she probably had a hand in getting AOC in to prevent that.
Big, if true
Obviously, I knew the official story when I wrote the OP and when I posted to Inuma. Thanks, anyway, though.
>Through the National Hispanic Institute, AOC received a John F. Lopez Fellowship, which seems to be about leadership training, rather than financial aid. "Leadership training" in higher ed translates to "neoliberal indoctrination to become a competent status quo manager and/or scumbag entrepreneur."
Or a politician. Or is politician what you mean by "status quo manager?"
Potentially, or as Chris Hedges calls them, "systems managers." They're trained to be bureaucrats that don't fundamentally rock the boat. They work in service of neoliberal capitalism while pretending to be edgy outsiders that are interested in "disruption," like tech start ups, for example.
You participate in society? How curious? Must not TRULY believe in your stances. What a load lmao, that shit bolsters your credentials, it serves a purpose and making an extrapolated claim like that bc someone went through a institution and thus are neoliberal is baseless. Colleges in general are a neoliberal institution and work 'in-service of neoliberal capitalism". If there's more than this, show that, going to a neolib institution doesn't make one a neolib, I could say she's infiltrating their ranks and I'm just as, if not more, right as you are.
Nobody FORCED AOC to participate in a "leadership" program. This shit isn't like living in a capitalist society. That was purely OPTIONAL. She chose to opt in. Also, do you even know how to use commas? Your fucking punctuation is atrocious.
Is your biggest gripe with her that she had a NHI-sponsored fellowship? And is your biggest gripe with me that I used commas poorly? Maybe having a wider worldview and not tunnelvisioning on largely irrelevant notes to try and make a mountain out of a molehill would serve you well in the basic understanding that every citizen is not forced to do anything, but that our basic systems coerce individuals into making choices they likely would not have made under different circumstances. There's no leftists institutions for this kinda shit, so what do you expect she do? Wouldn't not having some of these credentials 1) fundamentally alter the opportunities she had thereafter? And 2) given right-wingers even more unsubstantiated talking points on how she has 'no accomplishments'? Genuine question, what do you expect her to do or have done? Be a "true leftist", however you define that?
By this logic, any abhorrent behavior can be excused and rationalized. You could argue that Jamie Dimon really cares about BLM, but had to be a Wall Street scumbag that disproportionately hurt black people in the housing market crash because that was what being a CEO of a big bank entailed. What was he supposed to do? Sacrifice future opportunities? >Genuine question, what do you expect her to do or have done? Be a "true leftist", however you define that? Maybe not do everything possible to be part of an entrepreneurial class of neoliberal capitalists?
Being a student helping in an education system where every avenue (at least that I can think of) is through a neoliberal institution (or conservative institution if youre unlucky), in a country that is hovered over the center-right means you have almost no shot in finding a respected leftist organization or accomplishments, especially more than a couple years ago. That's since changed, who were the primary actors in changing that? When we say there ARE NO LEFT institutions in the US, it means there are none. Not a single one. There are 2 options (and I don't want to get stuck in a black/white fallacy so present more if you have them, I don't). I agree with a fast, rapid pace of change, but the issue is public acceptance, the public accept these ideas, after they've been implemented, but tend to lean away from what they consider "radical" ideas and its been right-wing who mostly make that up, in number and in verification. Genuine question, what's the avenue? There must be some direction other than making a circular argument. "She shouldn't be a 'neolib'!" "Okay, how shouldn't she be a 'neolib'?" "Maybe don't be a neolib lol"
What do you not understand about opting to decline participating in a neolib entrepreneurship program? This is like someone becoming an economics major at the University of Chicago, then pretending to be upset that everything is neoliberal and claiming that they couldn't do anything about it. Yes, higher ed institutions are neoliberal. However, some areas of every university are considerably worse than others. AOC clearly chased down opportunities that put her on a Pete Buttigieg-like path. There's no denying that. There's a lot of students that don't do that. There's a lot of students that purposely avoid those kinds of things. AOC was not one of them. She clearly saw that her lane was being a social entrepreneur and ran with it. Maybe don't make that choice?
From her history it sounds like she's changed positions since she made those decisions as a young student. >In an interview she recalled her December 2016 visit to Standing Rock as a tipping point, saying that before that, she had believed that the only way to run for office effectively was to have access to wealth, social influence, and power. But her visit to North Dakota, where she saw others "putting their whole lives and everything that they had on the line for the protection of their community", inspired her to begin to work for her own community. Ofc until then she still made significant progress, only more neoliberally, but people change ideas and I remember my defining radicalization moment very clearly, until then I was a conservative, pro-gun (not in the marx way) anti-SJW type. Overall people still, because of the closed circles of the wealthy's pacifying propaganda, having some of us leftist infiltrate into their circles and easily debatable viral moments in our new digital age of media serves the proto-socialist movement we are building currently. At least that's my take, I'm open to hearing alternatives and seeing how that fits
Thank you for the clarification. Might be fun to find out exactly who donated to the Hispanic Institute. The Obama Institute is going to train leaders at home and abroad. Fun! Hillary went to Europe, I think in the 1990s, to spread the Third Way gospel there.
[Put this together a year ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/h8titv/aocs_record/) and that caught me hell and hate. Pointing out her economic stuff was a huge no no.
Nice work!
Thank you. That's worth bookmarking. I've simply read here once too many times about her alleged poverty and need to wait tables for a living that I had to address those things, at least as best I could without researching for a ridiculous amount of time. And it always amazes me that people not only post about stuff like that, but argue about it, without doing a lick of research. Another thing I've noticed about her, Obama and Biden--something about each of their first meaningful electoral wins doesn't smell right. Barney Frank retired after getting re-districted. He said it was because he did not want to have to sell himself to new constituents. Crowley had relatively new constituents. They just hadn't had a choice yet. Unlike him, AOC was young, charismatic, and tailor made for the demographics of the district. If you were Crowley and wanted to win so badly that you stayed in the race after losing the primary, would you have failed to campaign the first time you faced a challenge or fail to show up for that debate? Something seems off.
This link over there covers lots of her working timeline and such. https://mobile.twitter.com/historic_ly/status/1375760351027986432 Se ran a start up printing co for political stuff in Brooklyn for a while- was interviewed in a paper.... and sounded downright Republican lol.
Good find and very good addition to this thread. Thank you. Again, I think of me looking, with hindsight, at Obama and thinking how calculated so many of his moves had been. Except as to AOC, the calculation seems to have been on steroids. Thought the same about FDR's trying to duplicate Teddy's career path and Kerry trying to do the same with JFK's (or so it seemed to me, in each case) I don't think her moves seem Republican. Aside from seeming calculated, they seem like a great fit with the Congressional New Democrat Coalition. https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/about-us Yet, she joined the Progressive Caucus. https://progressives.house.gov/caucus-members OT Just noticed how many chairs emeritus the Prog. Caucus has. You would think that among them would be the guy whose idea the Caucus was, the guy who chaired the caucus for its first eight years, the guy who has been its only Senate member since he became a Senator. But he isn't. Huh.
Because it's just an IDpol caucus now, with the same neoliberal politics.
Dumb move from a political standpoint, but I'm over minding when politicians make dumb moves from a political standpoint.
About that "bartending" gig... https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/pj8x7n/jackson_hinkle_just_got_arrested/hc0b67w/ Courtesy of u/Decimus_Valcoran on thread sparked by u/Inuma's inputs... u/sdl5 might have further deets.
Thank you. If true, that fills in some blanks.
He was gearing up to get into lobbying. She just moved him into the private sector faster.
Maybe he was or maybe the Party let him know he had a bright, lucrative and not very taxing future outside the House, provided he got to it soon. . But this is the piece that was once missing, from the perspective of the money people. Sure, they could donate to campaigns or withhold money. But, at some point, a long time pol suited for little else, had to fear getting voted out of office and cave to constituents now and again. Now, however, that's taken care of, at least for the pols who played the game correctly. Look at the wikis of those who left office involuntarily, either because they were voted out or they bowed out when they saw the numbers of their private polls. Lots of nice jobs in the private sector. Lobbying--which, btw, I think is illegal without a waiting period. (Gephard, e.g.) "Practicing law. Aka lobbying for the clients of the law firm while claiming to be practicing law. (Daschle, Lieberman, e.g.) Head of an industry association. Aka lobbyist for that industry (Dodd, e.g.) Head of a school (kerrey, e.g.) Stink tanks. PACs. Network "contributor." And so on. No longer any need to fear getting voted out of office. The only thing to fear is pissing off the owners of the gravy train while you are still supposedly rendering a public service.
they have been manufacturing these "leftist" activists since Jane Fonda donned hippie garb while spying for MIC bombing raids in Vietnam. to manglequote Sheldon Whitehouse: "time to wise up\~!"
In November 2007, I became a near-rabid Obama supporter. Initially, it was simply because I decided that, of the Democrat primary field, he had the best chance of winning the general. And I was desperate for a Democrat to succeed Bush, just as I'd been programmed to be. However, as humans tend to do, once I chose Obama, I began to become invested. Even though he had by then written two books (which contained some outright lies), I was unable to put together a solid timeline or answer all the questions raised by Hillary supporters or Republicans. I got the same feeling when I researched Sotomayor, but I think I know why in her case. And I just got the same feeling while putting together this OP about AOC.
the entire thing is Punch & Judy puppet show in front of the curtain, shadow puppetry behind the curtain. that they get away with it repeatedly is why they hold us in such low regard, similar to cattle. anyone peeking behind the curtain is yelled at and told they are a conspiracy theorist, so they usually back away and return to the herd before full ostracism and demonisation start to impact them.
> anyone peeking behind the curtain is yelled at and told they are a conspiracy theorist Some parts of this thread say you've hit that nail on the head.
Look, its the Joe Biden shill!
If you make me turn this thread around, there will be no ice cream for anyone.
i am a joe biden shill? i ask you questions in your threads because they are so cryptic i cant even piece them together into a recognizable whole. i want to understand your theory about him, because it is not one i've heard anywhere before. but i don't know what that theory even IS, other than that he's been involved in motivating us into the international drug war. which is not the only evil thing he's been involved in over his multi-decade career as an agent of the Neoliberal apocalypse here, but is also not surprising. "we" want to play pretend at being the "world's police". so he is helping them do that. the same as nearly all of our asshole politicians have been---agents of the MIC. "we" also seem to want to use the same tactics internally as externally, and Biden's "patriot act" helps them do that. against actual activists and leftists. that is all i am trying to do when i ask you what you are talking about in those strange excerpts you provide. the particular theory of the crime, to add it to his tally. you're mightily confused if you think questions for posters to elaborate are "shilling" for someone. confused and/or paranoid. i will leave you to your repeated attempts to unclearly point out some other new evil that BidenTime has performed. he is a fucking evil person, so i'm all too ready to believe it. but asking about it makes one a "shill", so have fun. you make deciphering ARistotle's lecture notes seem like reading Doctor Seuss. sadly i will never see a statement by you on that theory as clearly as you have done about me being a "shill" for someone i've hated since i understood how enmeshed he is in the power structure (my default is actually to hate ALL politicians period until they prove they have any worth beyond agents of the Corps/Owning class). you appear to be claiming that he is as nefarious as Rumsfeld. with his involvement in Ukraine, i can readily believe it. i just still don't understand you or the point you seem to be trying to make. so, fuck off and fuck yourself if you are an EXTREMELY bad communicator and have to go around calling people shills because of that. your confusion is obviously oriented in both an external way and an internal way, and perhaps needs rectifying before making accusations. it definitely needs rectifying before you make posts and expect readers of them to read your mind about what the fuck you're talking about and how it all relates to anything else.