AoC Gets a $312 Haircut and Attempts to defend her socialism loving self indulging in elite capitalism

[zinfamous]

I'm by no means an AOC fan. But it is her money, and she can spend it as she sees fit. If she's skimming donations I hope she's investigated and charged if there is evidence.

so, this is how quickly "people are saying!" becomes a thing for people to latch onto, based on absolutely no logic, and then decide that investigations are absolutely necessary, "because some stranger on the internet posted some words."

It took you guys....4 posts and a 7 hour gap (could easily have been minutes) to decide that something that never happened, is suddenly probable, and is probably more worthy of investigation than the multiple crimes, based on public, known evidence that Trump has actually committed.

Brilliant.

 

[zinfamous]

In Brandon’s defense and I really hte defending him.
Upon reading his post again it does clearly say “I bet” which is obviously an opinion.

There is no defense of "I have an opinion," when it is clearly used as the sum-total of "I believe this is truth--because I believe it."

3rd grade nonsense.

 

[DarthKyrie]

It's almost like the concern is insincere.

I agree I don't buy the concern over what women pay for services at the salon.

 

[UNCjigga]

You know, this seems oddly relevant to this thread for some reason:

 

[ch33zw1z]

You know, this seems oddly relevant to this thread for some reason:

Well geegollywillacker Limbaugh, you were so convincing previously, lol....he's a chode.

 

[Greenman]

I’ve got my eye on you.
You’re the type guy who is needed to talk sense into the Brandon’s of this board.

so, this is how quickly "people are saying!" becomes a thing for people to latch onto, based on absolutely no logic, and then decide that investigations are absolutely necessary, "because some stranger on the internet posted some words."

It took you guys....4 posts and a 7 hour gap (could easily have been minutes) to decide that something that never happened, is suddenly probable, and is probably more worthy of investigation than the multiple crimes, based on public, known evidence that Trump has actually committed.

Brilliant.

I didn't "latch on" to anything. I know nothing about the accusations or where they came from. That's why the sentence started with the word "if". In this case "if" designates an event unknown to me. AOC may or may not have misappropriated funds, she may or may not stand accused of said missapproation, I have no knowledge either way.
These qualifiers are an important part of communication, in this case, you're accusing me of accepting and even promoting what may be nothing more than a rumor, all because you either didn't read, or chose to ignore, that single qualifying word.
I don't understand the need to bring Trump into the discussion, he's already been investigated once, and now a second time with regards to Ukraine. If (there's that word again) enough evidence is produced, he'll be impeached, and rightfully so. Your whataboutisim isn't required here, and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

 

[Greenman]

There is no defense of "I have an opinion," when it is clearly used as the sum-total of "I believe this is truth--because I believe it."

3rd grade nonsense.

And a reasonably accurate description of P&N as a whole.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm by no means an AOC fan. But it is her money, and she can spend it as she sees fit. If she's skimming donations I hope she's investigated and charged if there is evidence.

Don't buy into the bullshit even a little bit. You're granting credibility to scurrilous innuendo by even saying it might be true.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't buy into the bullshit even a little bit. You're granting credibility to scurrilous innuendo by even saying it might be true.

Isn't that the whole point?

 

[Greenman]

Don't buy into the bullshit even a little bit. You're granting credibility to scurrilous innuendo by even saying it might be true.

I splained it once, if you don't get it, that's on you, not me.
Though I do find it interesting that I've been challenged twice for a hypothetical response to a claim that I have no knowledge of.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Isn't that the whole point?

Bingo!

 

[Jhhnn]

I splained it once, if you don't get it, that's on you, not me.
Though I do find it interesting that I've been challenged twice for a hypothetical response to a claim that I have no knowledge of.

Yeh, I mean, having no knowledge of Greenman being a chicken fucker means I really shouldn't advance the notion that he might be if he were investigated. It wouldn't be fair or reasonable.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I splained it once, if you don't get it, that's on you, not me.
Though I do find it interesting that I've been challenged twice for a hypothetical response to a claim that I have no knowledge of.

No knowledge of and yet you mentioned it. Odd how that happens.

 

[Greenman]

Yeh, I mean, having no knowledge of Greenman being a chicken fucker means I really shouldn't advance the notion that he might be if he were investigated. It wouldn't be fair or reasonable.

You're projecting.

 

[Greenman]

No knowledge of and yet you mentioned it. Odd how that happens.

Read the thread. I didn't mention it, I responded to another post and I was defending AOC's actions.
It's honestly bizarre to me that you fellows are so worked up over a very reasonable statement. It's like you only read the words you want to see.

 

[mect]

That's not how it works and I don't understand how people continue to argue this chain of actions. (see Hunter etc)

First comes evidence, and THEN investigation.

Unless it is a republican. Then we have to have a conviction in court before we can support an investigation.

 

[TheVrolok]

Unless it is a republican. Then we have to have a conviction in court before we can support an investigation.

Exactly. In the G7 thread Taj is literally arguing that holding the G7 at Doral doesn't violate the Emoluments clause because a court hasn't ruled that it does yet. That's the completely backwards logic of my previous post. The clause already definitively says it's illegal, we don't need to wait for a court that will try to find an interpretation that gives him a loophole.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

More AOC hilarity. She gets called out for her Saks 5th ave dress, which previously retailed for 580(?) but now sells for $232.
That is a pretty good bargain for a woman’s formal dress, I have never purchased a suit for less than $100, then add $30 for the shirt and such. That was a shitty quality suit. $200ish is the norm.
Im starting to believe these conservative papers/twatters don’t want her wearing clothes for “reasons” due to socialism not because she is attractive.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to article on her 'View' dress: 'Sequins are a great accessory to universal healthcare, don’t you agree?'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replied to critics of her TV dress.

www.yahoo.com

BTW: great dress, great choice for the venue.

 

[DarthKyrie]

More AOC hilarity. She gets called out for her Saks 5th ave dress, which previously retailed for 580(?) but now sells for $232.
That is a pretty good bargain for a woman’s formal dress, I have never purchased a suit for less than $100, then add $30 for the shirt and such. That was a shitty quality suit. $200ish is the norm.
Im starting to believe these conservative papers/twatters don’t want her wearing clothes for “reasons” due to socialism not because she is attractive.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to article on her 'View' dress: 'Sequins are a great accessory to universal healthcare, don’t you agree?'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replied to critics of her TV dress.

www.yahoo.com

Don't you know she is supposed to dress in clothes that she bought at WallyWorld.

 

[fskimospy]

More AOC hilarity. She gets called out for her Saks 5th ave dress, which previously retailed for 580(?) but now sells for $232.
That is a pretty good bargain for a woman’s formal dress, I have never purchased a suit for less than $100, then add $30 for the shirt and such. That was a shitty quality suit. $200ish is the norm.
Im starting to believe these conservative papers/twatters don’t want her wearing clothes for “reasons” due to socialism not because she is attractive.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to article on her 'View' dress: 'Sequins are a great accessory to universal healthcare, don’t you agree?'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replied to critics of her TV dress.

www.yahoo.com

If she wore shitty clothes they would say she was disrespecting her office and she wanted all of America to dress like hobos because of socialism. If she wears nice clothes then they will argue she's an elitist and living it up while asking everyone else to be poor or whatever. It doesn't matter because they were never genuine in their criticism to begin with.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In socialism equality, does everyone get to shop at Saks? Or is it more along the lines of buying your dresses from Target?

Fanatical you do understand that there is such thing as a $100 suit and a $1,500 suit?

 

[brycejones]

More AOC hilarity. She gets called out for her Saks 5th ave dress, which previously retailed for 580(?) but now sells for $232.
That is a pretty good bargain for a woman’s formal dress, I have never purchased a suit for less than $100, then add $30 for the shirt and such. That was a shitty quality suit. $200ish is the norm.
Im starting to believe these conservative papers/twatters don’t want her wearing clothes for “reasons” due to socialism not because she is attractive.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to article on her 'View' dress: 'Sequins are a great accessory to universal healthcare, don’t you agree?'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replied to critics of her TV dress.

www.yahoo.com

Unless she only wears clothes from thrift stores she will forever be tainted in the eyes of conservatives and a "hypocrite" to people like the OP.

Of course if she did that then they would be complaining about her "stealing" clothes from poor people since she has a well paying job.

 

[pmv]

More AOC hilarity. She gets called out for her Saks 5th ave dress, which previously retailed for 580(?) but now sells for $232.
That is a pretty good bargain for a woman’s formal dress, I have never purchased a suit for less than $100, then add $30 for the shirt and such. That was a shitty quality suit. $200ish is the norm.
Im starting to believe these conservative papers/twatters don’t want her wearing clothes for “reasons” due to socialism not because she is attractive.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to article on her 'View' dress: 'Sequins are a great accessory to universal healthcare, don’t you agree?'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replied to critics of her TV dress.

www.yahoo.com

These spats get sillier and sillier. There are people on minimum wage or even welfare here who might spend the equivalent of $200 on a posh dress or job-interview-suit, at least as a one-off thing. Is anyone shocked that a professional-class salaried person does so? This isn't Soviet Russia or Mao's China.

That said, I do feel a small bit more judgemental at this bit at the end of the original article:

Either way, AOC is still spending like a socialist compared to establishment Dem Hillary Clinton, who got pilloried in 2016 for wearing a $12,000 Armani tweed jacket while delivering a speech on income inequality.

Not a great tactical choice if that's the point of your speech.

But the key point is always - does someone's lifestyle and income-bracket appear to influence their political attitudes? The only time I'd care about this stuff is if it was apparent that someone was pushing policies and an ideology that reflected the self-interest of their class. Bloomberg comes to mind.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

In socialism equality, does everyone get to shop at Saks? Or is it more along the lines of buying your dresses from Target?

Fanatical you do understand that there is such thing as a $100 suit and a $1,500 suit?

yes I understand very well. Just working on the typical type stuff.
Really weird to point out a woman on a FUCKING TV appearance wearing a couple of hundred dollar dress as a guy *if* going to be on a political show for sub $250 in clothing or suit would be impossible assuming I want to look appropriate.

 

[sdifox]

Did they lose their shit when the previous NRA CEO spent 300k on suit and charged to the NRA?