Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

NY Times: How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez learned to play by Washington's rules

I am not surprised at this at all--just that it took her so long to realize she would have to do this.

You can't be bratty and divisive forever if you want to get things doner. It can get you elected, but you have to work with other people if you want to enact significant legislation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61September 26, 2019 7:12 PM

Oh lordt. Here we go. The cranky eldergays of the DL will masturbate over the notion of AOC being given WHAT FOR by her ELDERS. So tiresome.

by Anonymousreply 1September 18, 2019 6:39 PM

[quote] if you want to get things doner.

Sorry--I meant "to get things done."

by Anonymousreply 2September 18, 2019 6:42 PM

They gloss over her boyfriend scandal over campaign funds and her "victory" of making Amazon reneg on moving to NYC, effectively cutting of New York's potential as a new tech center hub.

Great job cunt!

by Anonymousreply 3September 18, 2019 6:44 PM

How dare people have opinions other than mine! You'd think they actually have the same number of votes as I do!

by Anonymousreply 4September 18, 2019 6:44 PM

Oh good. We haven't had a thread about AOC in quite a while.

by Anonymousreply 5September 18, 2019 6:52 PM

People can have whatever opinion they want about anything but the elderly fraus of the DL regularly go way overboard when it comes to AOC. She obviously triggers the delicate snowflakes.

by Anonymousreply 6September 18, 2019 6:59 PM

You're the only delicate snowflake here so far, R6.

by Anonymousreply 7September 18, 2019 7:00 PM

Yet posters like r6 seem equally triggered.

by Anonymousreply 8September 18, 2019 7:20 PM

And thus far, R8, two other discerning readers have WW'd it.

by Anonymousreply 9September 18, 2019 7:30 PM

You do know that you can WW yourself, r9.

by Anonymousreply 10September 18, 2019 7:33 PM

You're blocked to me under your other persona, R10, so indeed you can. I couldn't be bothered.

by Anonymousreply 11September 18, 2019 7:57 PM

And I couldn't be bothered with "another persona".

by Anonymousreply 12September 18, 2019 7:59 PM

Damage control of the “look see, I can play nice pls don’t remove my district!” sort.

by Anonymousreply 13September 18, 2019 8:08 PM

Wait a minute. Wasn't she the one from the colonies that married Prince Harry? Or am I mixing her up with someone else?

by Anonymousreply 14September 18, 2019 8:14 PM

[quote] You do know that you can WW yourself, [R9].

This needs to be noted. You cannot enlist your post being WWed (especially by just 2 votes!) as some of endorsement of your ideas when you can actually vote yourself for WW.

by Anonymousreply 15September 18, 2019 8:26 PM

I am still amazed AOC's chief of staff did not realize when he said those things about the other Democrats that she would be seen as responsible for those statements (since she is the elected figure and he is unelected). AOC and her organization got so much acclaim for figuring out how social media works in a way that was profitable for her campaign, but they were so naive about how what they say plays in the media after she got elected.

by Anonymousreply 16September 18, 2019 8:48 PM

[quote]but they were so naive about how what they say plays in the media after she got elected.

They weren't naive. They intended to blow up the process, come what may.

by Anonymousreply 17September 18, 2019 9:01 PM

If you want to push the center of the Democratic party left (and I think it'd be a great idea), one good way is to primary centrist Dems from safe seats with more liberal representatives. The Rs have been doing it for generations and have successfully pushed the federal government to the right in radical ways. This feels like a corrective move.

by Anonymousreply 18September 19, 2019 2:29 PM

It was tried in 2018 and the progressives didn't fare so well.

by Anonymousreply 19September 19, 2019 2:32 PM

It's a process. And if you believe in the goal, you keep at it. You don't accept "the people have spoken" and give up. Huge majorities in this country believe in limiting gun rights, expanding social security and higher taxes on the rich. Do the Republicans throw up their hands and say "the people have spoken"? Fuck no. They keep trying. And sometimes they win.

by Anonymousreply 20September 19, 2019 3:19 PM

[quote]Huge majorities in this country believe in limiting gun rights, expanding social security and higher taxes on the rich.

So do moderates. The devil is in the details, as they say.

by Anonymousreply 21September 19, 2019 3:22 PM

I would have loved to have been there when she told her chief of staff and director of communications she was letting them go.

by Anonymousreply 22September 19, 2019 5:37 PM

[quote]You do know that you can WW yourself, R9.

Not only that but when the system is buggy, as it usually is, you can W&W yourself multiple times.

by Anonymousreply 23September 19, 2019 5:57 PM

Of course she makes this "adjustment" all about her, with silly claims that people are afraid of her.

She's as narcissistic as Trump.

And BTW, whatever happened to that anti-lobbying bill she's supposed to be working on with Ted Cruz that got them headlines about 4 months ago?

Crickets.....

by Anonymousreply 24September 19, 2019 6:01 PM

Have one on me, r23!

by Anonymousreply 25September 19, 2019 7:36 PM

Except, R21, what have 'moderates' done to actually effect that change? Nothing as far as I can see. Moderates need to go.

by Anonymousreply 26September 20, 2019 11:46 AM

Allow me to introduce you to things like the ACA, r26.

by Anonymousreply 27September 20, 2019 1:58 PM

Which "moderates" like like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson watered down to such a degree that it became a half-measure at best that was so toxically unpopular that the Democratic party was evicerated in the 2010 election

by Anonymousreply 28September 20, 2019 2:15 PM

R28, if you think Warren or Bernie is going to give you free health care then you are incredibly naive. It's one thing to talk a good game and sucker people in, it's quite another to deliver on the promise -- and what's going to put an end to it will be funding these programs and not the moderates.

Right now all you have is a lot of bluster. I can actually point to changes that moderates made.

by Anonymousreply 29September 20, 2019 2:27 PM

By definition, moderates don't make much in the way of change. They're moderate. They make moderate little niggling changes in things. But no, I don't really think any of the healthcare promises made by Sanders or Biden or Warren will actually happen. Because even if God smiles on the Democratic Party and they happen to miraculously win the Senate, that means the key Senator who has veto power over any legislation is Joe Manchin. And he won't do M4A or free college or anything like that.

by Anonymousreply 30September 20, 2019 4:54 PM

[quote]By definition, moderates don't make much in the way of change. They're moderate.

It's called incremental change, r30. And it beats the empty promises that are being made now by progressives that will ultimately result in...incremental change. Huzzah

by Anonymousreply 31September 20, 2019 5:55 PM

If the Democrats win the Presidency and retake the Senate, even with bulletproof majority; say, 52 - 48, they still won’t get these huge programs enacted into law because some Democratic senators represent Red States and want to get re-elected.

by Anonymousreply 32September 20, 2019 6:02 PM

How dare she do something!

by Anonymousreply 33September 20, 2019 6:04 PM

Remains to be seen, r33. It's all talk right now.

by Anonymousreply 34September 20, 2019 6:10 PM

What exactly has she done, r33?

I'm waiting for your extensive list of her accomplishments.

by Anonymousreply 35September 21, 2019 1:05 AM

[quote]...one good way is to primary centrist Dems from safe seats with more liberal representatives.

Remember- EVERY candidate AOC has publicly backed has LOST! EVERY ONE.

by Anonymousreply 36September 21, 2019 2:44 AM

R35, either she’s the second coming of Stalin off to chuck everyone over 50 into a gulag or she’s a do-nothing dilettante

by Anonymousreply 37September 24, 2019 1:21 AM

She hasn’t learned anything.

by Anonymousreply 38September 24, 2019 1:30 AM

It's not an AOC thread without stupid, uneducated whores claiming she spiked that stupid, revenue destroying Amazon deal. When it was a STATE SENATOR who spiked it with the support of his constituents who didn't want Amazon there. Nor did anyone want to give tax money to Amazon who does not need nor deserve it.

by Anonymousreply 39September 24, 2019 1:58 AM

[quote]It's not an AOC thread without stupid, uneducated whores claiming she spiked that stupid, revenue destroying Amazon deal.

She was very vocal about it. any google search will show you that. Moron.

by Anonymousreply 40September 24, 2019 2:53 AM

R40: The decision rested with state government, not her. She took the right position that it was wrong to give a multi-billion dollar corporation tax money to build an unnecessary second headquarters in a neighborhood that nobody wanted it in. But she "spiked" nothing, the State Senator did. Retard.

by Anonymousreply 41September 24, 2019 1:32 PM

The deal fell through because the people of the affected neighborhood (like me) rose up in loud protest of giving away lots of our tax dollars to help out the richest corporation on earth jack up our housing prices. That's why it got spiked. And cranky cunts on DL (who prob wouldn't want a big apartment building put up near them) get all pissy.

by Anonymousreply 42September 24, 2019 1:42 PM

I laugh at all of you complaining about the tax breaks Amazon was going to get when NY gives huge tax subsidies to the film industry.

by Anonymousreply 43September 24, 2019 1:46 PM

And like AOC quotes statements, you morons don’t understand that the tax breaks are not coming “out of your pockets” because without Amazon coming here , it pays ZERO incremental taxes.

So net net, killing the deal resulted in fewer taxes revenues. Period

by Anonymousreply 44September 24, 2019 2:56 PM

R44: Untrue. Amazon was providing 0 revenue before, and 0 now. Therefore, no revenue gained or lost. God you right wingers are just so uneducated.

TROLL. HIJACKED. THREAD. CLOSED!

by Anonymousreply 45September 24, 2019 8:48 PM

Even more untrue in that Amazon is currently hiring people and building out space in NYC without robbing the state coffers. So win-win-win!

by Anonymousreply 46September 24, 2019 8:50 PM

R45 different type tax revenue.

R46, nowhere near the magnitude of what they wanted to build.

by Anonymousreply 47September 24, 2019 9:06 PM

[quote]. Wow your stupidity is pretty shocking.

AOC was saying the “$300 million tax breaks” could instead be used to pay for things like healthcare or education.

Yet by killing the deal that means. 0 taxes.

As opposed to $X million normal taxes Amazon would have paid without tax breaks minus whatever tax breaks NYC offered. Whatever that math would have been would still have been NET POSITIVE revenue.

Instead it’s net neutral. Great job AOC!

And as usual, you assumed”right winger” because someone disagrees with you.

Double moron

by Anonymousreply 48September 24, 2019 9:55 PM

R48, it's been said over and over and over and over that AOC actually had zero power to stop this deal. It was strictly between the State and Amazon. And AOC is a ....federal representative! No one knows fucking anything any more. You go off on her because the idiots on TV tell you to.

by Anonymousreply 49September 25, 2019 11:56 AM

I take it r49 never read about how she organized protests and was very vocal (and inaccurately so) about the agreement in the press and on social media. You don't need to be the person voting to scuttle the deal.

by Anonymousreply 50September 25, 2019 12:54 PM

She's no fool.

by Anonymousreply 51September 25, 2019 2:16 PM

Lots of people were vocal in opposition to that graft-y bit of corporate welfare, most intensely, the people who'd be affected by it most -- those who live in Long Island City and Astoria, where I assume you don't live, but blithely agree to massive overdevelopment of someone else's backyard.

by Anonymousreply 52September 25, 2019 2:57 PM

R3 State Senator Mike Giannaris is the one to get the blame for the Amazon fiasco. AOC took all the credit but did none of the nitty gritty legwork to get it done.

by Anonymousreply 53September 25, 2019 3:07 PM

I live in both NY and Pittsburgh, r52. Specifically, LIC. I'm also aware that rents and housing prices have been declining in the area faster than anywhere else in NYC. I'm also aware that AOC thought, incorrectly, that Amazon was getting cash. I'm also aware that she didn't understand the economics of the deal. More importantly, I'm aware of the polling that was done that showed 1) people wanted the deal and 2) that AOC was the "villain" (the poll's word, not mine) when the deal fell through.

by Anonymousreply 54September 25, 2019 3:16 PM

Thanks R54. The morons on this thread up AOCS ass are displaying a level of stupidity heretofore only expresses by AOC herself

by Anonymousreply 55September 25, 2019 3:30 PM

R55: WRONG! R54 is now banned for retardation on economics. Amazon would have gotten tax money for moving to NY. That's not up for debate, no matter how much 54 keeps incorrectly saying it is. 54 also incorrectly stats that Amazon not coming is costing NY revenue, a laughable proposition since they weren't generating revenue before, and major chunks of revenue that would have been generated would have gone back to them as tax breaks. AOC stole no credit, as the State Senator shut the thing down, with FULL PUBLIC SUPPORT! This will be the last time these facts are stated against you lying cunts about this issue.

And as far as YOU are concerned R55, let me spell it out for you:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 56September 25, 2019 3:40 PM

R56 you really are stupid for words.

Tax CREDITS are not “Amazon getting tax money”

Let me spoon feed this to your limited brain.

To get a tax Credit, you first must have a Tax burden. Ie if Amazon did move here and would normally owe $1 billion in taxes, but NYC offered them $900 million in tax credits, that’s still $100 million more tax revenue for NYC vs if they didn’t move here.

Stopping them from coming here is net zero. That $900 million we “gave the “ never existed.

And as amraaady pointed out, AOC ent on public record not understanding this just as you don’t.

And she theoretically has a degree in economics.

by Anonymousreply 57September 25, 2019 3:45 PM

Being "banned" by the likes of r56 is a badge of honor.

by Anonymousreply 58September 25, 2019 3:49 PM

Oh excuse me, R54. I'm so impressed you live in PITTSBURG. But, beyond that, a simple Google News search reveals such headlines as "NYC Rent Prices Spike in August" and "Leasing Is Strong In Queens" so...maybe you're a fucking idiot.

by Anonymousreply 59September 25, 2019 8:15 PM

Yeah, r59, the housing market in NYC is only recently recovering from a slump. And I notice you didn't even try to touch the rest of the post. But thanks for trying.

by Anonymousreply 60September 25, 2019 8:21 PM

Slump? A $3k studio is a motherfucking slump?

by Anonymousreply 61September 26, 2019 7:12 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!