Has Good Principles and is willing to fight for them. What's not to like?
She's both ignorant and stupid. Your video is just the tip of the iceberg. As far as being attractive . . meh. I live in a part of the country that is literally overrun with gorgeous Hispanic women and AOC isn't even average. Shit, I own horses that don't have teeth as big as hers. LoL.
She also talked about the money that Amazon was going to get as if it was money that the city/state was giving to Amazon as cash. It was not. That too was a dumb thing she did. Nobody is perfect.
Your position is that she made a mistake about the double job thing. If she gets dragged into topics where she makes those types of comments, it will make her look like she does not know what she is talking about.
She also did something like that with the Amazon deal. Talking about how the money should go to transit instead of Amazon makes no sense given what the deal was. Nobody was giving Amazon $3 billion.
Good principles are good, but, they don't always lead to good outcomes.
True, but you're far more likely to have a better outcome when starting with Good Principles rather than Bad Principles.
She's both ignorant and stupid.
She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.[27][31][32]
In the 2016 primary, Ocasio-Cortez worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign.[41] After the general election, she traveled across America by car, visiting places such as Flint, Michigan, and Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota, and speaking to people affected by the Flint water crisis and the Dakota Access Pipeline.[42]
She's right about the Amazon deal, a big chunk of it was refundable tax credits, so the state or the city would have been paying money to Amazon.
I do agree that she is not perfect. In terms of foreign policy she is nowhere near as good as Ilhan Omar.
Anyone that does a lot of interviews and engages with people publicly on a regular basis (i.e. her Twitter account) is going to make mistakes. I don't think her mistakes have been unusually bad or frequent, but I think her critics have very little to bite on, so they try to make a big issue of them and also make a big deal of her driving around in cars.
I makes perfect sense to people that are opposed to corporate handouts. The criticism of her comments came from people who supported the grotesque spectacle of mayors and governors groveling before Amazon.
She has to deal with the idea, that she's way out in front of the parade, if she goes too far the parade won't follow. Kind of like where legalization of rec marijuana is maybe was. The Dems just won majority of the house, they were not all of AOC's political persuasion, they have more moderate constituencies. She needs to back off the "we will primary them" crap.Well-spoken, fearless in speaking up and comes in with an excellent set of ideals and is grounded in how normal people live their life. America needs 100 more AOCs.
No, she was clearly wrong. You cant invest a tax credit if you don't give it out. Can you explain how she could say that, and not be wrong?
"If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to"
Her comment as I quoted above was that if we were willing to give Amazon a tax break of $3 billion, that we should be willing to spend $3 billion on other things. The reason to give a tax break was that the city would not collect as much as normal, but, that would also mean they brought in over $20 Billion. So, either she was mistaken, or, she was playing with words to mislead. I'm guessing it was that she was mistaken.
At CPAC during Trump's meandering "speech", he did a bit about the Green Deal (paraphrasing) "Honey?, is the wind blowing? I'd like to watch some TV."Interesting write up about the hysteria surrounding her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...4d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.9100729e5f56
The ‘ravenous hysteria’ over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just reached a new level of crazy
Sometime over the past few days, the overreaction to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez moved from somewhat strange to downright bizarre — and, at times, more than a little scary.
On Greg Gutfeld’s show on Fox News, commentator Katherine Timpf lit into the 29-year-old congresswoman from New York over her championing of the Green New Deal, quipping that the climate-change initiative might even lead to cannibalism.
“I don’t want to eat people, Greg, and I don’t want people to eat me,” Timpf said. “AOC, do you want people to eat you?”
At last week’s CPAC conference, Sebastian Gorka took his shot, inspired by Ocasio-Cortez’s recent suggestions that the environment would benefit from restrictions on factory farming and suggestions that Americans consider eating less red meat.
“They want to rebuild your home, they want to take away your hamburgers,” said Gorka, the former Breitbart editor and former Trump administration official known for his Islamophobic ideas.
“This is what Stalin dreamed about but never achieved.”
At CPAC during Trump's meandering "speech", he did a bit about the Green Deal (paraphrasing) "Honey?, is the wind blowing? I'd like to watch some TV."
Ftfy.From now on Sebastian Gorka's nickname is "Hamberdler".
So, realistically, by not giving the tax credit, they've got another ~2B this year to play with, right?The $27 billion figure was over 25 years. And it was bullshit all along.
So, realistically, by not giving the tax credit, they've got another ~2B this year to play with, right?
Understood. Why does it always seem like any story presenting a view that makes it beneficial to give tax breaks to an organization that doesn't need it, ends up being completely false?No, the $27B figure was bullshit.
Do you know what a refundable tax credit is?
The $27 billion figure was over 25 years. And it was bullshit all along.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/17/1835392/-Amazon-s-27-Billion-Mirage
Understood. Why does it always seem like any story presenting a view that makes it beneficial to give tax breaks to an organization that doesn't need it, ends up being completely false?
Is it ... is it because it's all bullshit?
Yes, it means that the tax is collected and then given back. The only way for them to collect that tax is to make money. No tax was collected, so there is no money to invest.
Do not deflect. She got it wrong by saying that the $3 Billion could be spent somewhere.
The person that wrote that article is an idiot. If you are only going to look at tax collected then yes, its not $27 from Amazon and its employees. That is not how that $27 Billion was estimated though.
https://ny.curbed.com/2019/2/14/18225029/amazon-hq2-nyc-deal-canceled
That number was estimated by the net effect on all employment in the city. Amazon would have caused more demand in the city and the state. That demand would drive other jobs to be created that would not otherwise be created if Amazon was not there. The net effect of all of that was estimated to be $27 billion. The person from your article is a complete idiot.
She's better educated, more knowledgeable and more accomplished than you are.
As usual, you fall for the right-wing cult propaganda about her.