The RI thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[seemslikeadream]

she really is fantastic



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBeuzWWKrew



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5FBWkbAjEI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlpS4vhKP0

[seemslikeadream]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUmIdCClbTE

[seemslikeadream]

I posted this OP seven years ago ...and have been adding to it ever since ....it is one of my all time favorite threads
no one can take that 7 years away from me.....I KNOW WHERE I STAND ...years of devotion to this thread proves it and no one liners meant to slander me will stand it the light of that provable devotion....twisters are gonna twist but they can't twist my devotion to women's issues and a thread that is 7 years old ...proven over and over again

I have been dedicated to it since the day I started it it means a great deal to me

The War on Women
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34154

there is no one here more interested in woman's issues and I have proven that day in and day out here I have a record ...a SEVEN year record keeping track of women's issues

I love AOC

she is the best and she will help with the war on women




She is brave.. dedicated....and speaks her mind

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
‏
Again, didn’t threaten a primary.

I was upset that 26 Dems forced the other 200+ to vote for a pro-ICE provision at the last min without warning.

Because I think an agency that pins children down + forcibly injects them w/ antipsychotic drugs shouldn’t be given more power.

[Elvis]

People have working out the self-government thing for thousands of years now. I seem to see people here saying it's no use trying any more. Open armed revolution doesn't seem like a great choice in the U.S., so changing the laws is the main option, and Congress is where laws are made. I'd rather have AOC there than her lazily entrenched primary opponent. Yes her Venezuela stance for now is very disappointing. But she's bringing other very important questions and initiatives to the fore.

She is not beholden, like most of Congress is, to large corporate contributors. That alone is significant.

That House committee wasted five hours of everyone's time except for AOC, who was the only one to ask the real questions.

They say she's a very fast learner. Let's hope she gets up to speed on Venezuela, and stop assuming that she can't or won't.

Meanwhile AOC is getting the rest of the country up to speed on the GND and correct money policy.

I like Slad's comparison to the civil rights fight. Fucking bloodsoaked LBJ got a lot of that done, should the effort have been dismissed because "Johnson's a warmonger!"? (I think LBJ may have done his best work out of guilt over his crimes.)

[Cordelia]

jfc..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFdIRLsTvpo

[RocketMan]

jfc..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFdIRLsTvpo

That's some serious power dressing right there.

Paying obeisance to "impeachment's off the table" Pelosi is so 00s....

[seemslikeadream]

George E Jones Jr
‏

I bet you didn't know this Pt.1: @AOC as a teenager won second prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair on the effect of antioxidants In appreciation the International astronomical Union named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez


I bet you didn't know this Pt.2 @AOC In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute’s Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. She later became the LDZ Secretary of State while she attended Boston University Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship

I bet you didn't know this Pt.3 @AOC During college, she served as an intern in the immigration office during the final year of U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy’s tenure.
I bet you didn't know this Pt.4 @AOC She graduated cum laude from Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeEJonesJr/stat ... 2932977664

[Belligerent Savant]

People have working out the self-government thing for thousands of years now. I seem to see people here saying it's no use trying any more. Open armed revolution doesn't seem like a great choice in the U.S., so changing the laws is the main option, and Congress is where laws are made. I'd rather have AOC there than her lazily entrenched primary opponent. Yes her Venezuela stance for now is very disappointing. But she's bringing other very important questions and initiatives to the fore.

She is not beholden, like most of Congress is, to large corporate contributors. That alone is significant.

That House committee wasted five hours of everyone's time except for AOC, who was the only one to ask the real questions.

They say she's a very fast learner. Let's hope she gets up to speed on Venezuela, and stop assuming that she can't or won't.

Meanwhile AOC is getting the rest of the country up to speed on the GND and correct money policy.

I like Slad's comparison to the civil rights fight. Fucking bloodsoaked LBJ got a lot of that done, should the effort have been dismissed because "Johnson's a warmonger!"? (I think LBJ may have done his best work out of guilt over his crimes.)

I'll select a few quotes from the above:

Open armed revolution doesn't seem like a great choice in the U.S.,

Well, if we're going to opt for fanciful notions of change, there are less forceful options that can be attempted, though of course it would require mass buy-in, an unlikely scenario given how efficient The Establishment is in keeping the populace fractured and divided (both in opinion and socio-economic status). But if we're gonna dream:

- Worker strikes, specifically workers deployed in services that keep the hyper-capitalist system moving: TRANSPORTATION (airline, mass transit, etc) -- we saw how quickly Trump capitulated on the govt shutown once flight attendants threatened to strike. Imagine the power we'd have as a collective to affect change if we organized on a broad scale, with specific demands?

- Mass opt-out of tax payments. Similar to the above. Tax money may not be utilized as we believe, but that's moot. It's all about the optics, which in this scenario would be in The People's favor.

- Mass opt-out of voting. Again, if organized properly with buy-in from the majority -- across demographics, race, gender, class -- they sure as hell will listen.

Not to mention: can't initiate voter fraud and/or rig votes if there aren't voters.

(note: when I reference voter fraud/rigged votes, I'm referring to DOMESTIC voter fraud/vote rigging, given the historical examples of such events -- no need for foreign involvement.)

Yes her Venezuela stance for now is very disappointing.

To say the least. For a self-described Democratic "Socialist", it runs counter to the platform she claims to champion (Bernie is similarly guilty here). If you haven't already, I encourage everyone here to watch that instagram clip of her discussing "democracy" and "authoritarianism" on the topic of Venezuela. Cringe-worthy. Naive, at best. At worst, she's simply towing the Company line, as part of the Democratic Party Establishment, along with her fellow photo-op colleague and lead, Nancy Pelosi. In short, it's a prelude to how she'll maneuver in the future.

Or perhaps with more experience/tenure, she'll feel empowered/confident enough to challenge her Establishment on critically important issues like this.

Time will tell.

She is not beholden, like most of Congress is, to large corporate contributors. That alone is significant.

Fully agreed. This adds to her potential.

The Green New Deal looks promising. Proposed legislation/laws tend to look promising before a decision is rendered. They typically look promising on paper, often attractively packaged. And historically, there's been plenty of laws/legislation passed that have benefited the majority in certain respects -- we are not an overt totalitarian system, after all, and The Establishment knows very well how to keep the Masses pacified.

But the masses are becoming increasingly disenfranchized. They are growing impatient in direct proportion with the increasingly brazen tactics of power elements underpinning The Establishment.

I like Slad's comparison to the civil rights fight. Fucking bloodsoaked LBJ got a lot of that done, should the effort have been dismissed because "Johnson's a warmonger!"? (I think LBJ may have done his best work out of guilt over his crimes.)

Is this the Hollywood version of how the Civil Rights Act got passed? We know better that it wasn't LBJ -- with his own personal hit man; an alleged co-conspirator in the murder of JFK; a racist -- that was the catalyst to that Act, but many of the other players involved: Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, Nicholas Katzenbach, and Burke Marshall—not to mention MLK as well, of course.

Optics plays a very big part in how many things are presented here, in this grand theatre known as U.S. politics.

The Civil Rights fight is a good example, but not in the way intended.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60s, a decade when perhaps the most egregious acts of power-grabs occurred. FOUR of our leaders were taken out that decade: JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X. Those of us here will know, by now, that these acts are all connected -- there are no 'lone gunmen' responsible for these acts. They are acts perpetrated by elements of power within The Establishment.

They giveth, and they taketh away... with impunity.

Those elements of power are very much still in play, now.

But back to Civil Rights. Yes, the Act was passed in the early 60s, and it was absolutely a good thing. it was PROGRESS.

But in the years that followed we've continued to witness abhorrent acts against minorities/blacks aided by this System of ours. Drugs peddled into urban/minority neighborhoods, funded by US govt agencies to pay for for weapons/war efforts in foreign sovereign States (See Gary Webb/Iran Contra); we've witnessed minorities/blacks imprisoned at a FAR greater pace, with markedly longer prison terms than their white counterparts, for lesser crimes. Etc, etc. Examples abound.

Yes, let's have HOPE. IT may well be a different time now, in some respects. There IS POTENTIAL for some tangible change to the status quo -- The People may well be 'awakening' (though an argument can also be made for the opposite: we're more prone to manipulation and complacency with the increased pervasiveness of social media/technology-enabled controls in place).

But let's not turn away from what we've observed historically, and let's also be realistic about what type of true, substantive change can occur within this system, particularly with current Establishment leadership in place... such as the Representative posing next to AOC in that glorious Rolling Stones cover.

[JackRiddler]

.

One of these things is not like the others!

There undeniably already is "mass opt-out" on voting and while the propaganda says one thing, it is systemically ENCOURAGED. Why do the worst motherfuckers in the world spend BILLIONS on elections? Why do they work so hard to purge voter rolls, suppress the vote, exclude people through the mass incarceration system, etc. etc.? Why do they make up this incredible evil fraud about "illegal voters"? If all candidates yield identical results, why would they even bother rigging vote counts? A majority of eligible voters almost never participate, except for the bare majority in (most) presidential a years. If your "mass opt-out" - It's Do Nothing Day! Victory! - got up to 80 percent, you can be sure the majority of the power elite would be popping the champagne corks. After all, they recently identified "populism" as the worst problem. What the fuck difference would this make, if you join the majority who don't get in line for an hour once a year? Are you kidding me? They already are very demonstrative about not giving a fuck what people think, unless said people are striking and marching with pitchforks. If you think voting changes nothing, then how the hell can you think NOT voting would? That's crazy talk, seriously. If you believe voting is a joke, the only logically consistent position is not to actively encourage non-voting, but not to even advocate a position on it and put your energies elsewhere.

Mass tax strike is informally the case already, and very few fucks are given. The war machine rolls on. First of all, this is why they collect via your boss, so quit your job is I guess what you are saying. The only effective way is to publicly out yourself as a conscientious objector to war taxes. Very few have the courage to do that. Be my guest. I will seriously admire you.

Now mass strikes can and have brought industries to a halt and forced major items on reform agendas with the participation of a small proportion of the working class (long as it is overwhelming in the industries being hit). Teachers in many states have once again demonstrated this over the last year. The other huge difference is that it involves organization of live people in the real world.

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Quick clarifying follow-up points:

Re: voting/non-voting: I'm talking about the optics of a mass organization -- across party lines/demographics, as I stated above -- as an integral element to the voting "opt-out". NOT the fractured/complacent/indifferent "opting out" of voting that currently takes place, which is what you're referencing. To the contrary, an organized effort, under one banner, to collectively opt out of voting en masse absolutely sends a message, not only domestically, but internationally, that we As a People do NOT subscribe to the decisions made in our name.

Such a movement is the opposite of "do nothing". Mass organization/protest requires much effort, as you and many others fully appreciate.

Re: taxes -- yes, you're essentially right. But again, it's about a 'mass organization', a collective effort, in opting out en masse. This is where the difference lies. Not just me or a minority opting out, but a plurality. Anything that can be organized at mass scale will garner plenty of attention.

Mass Strikes are indeed the most viable option -- both historically and currently. It's been impactful before, and can be impactful again.


Anyway, offered the caveat at the onset that these were fanciful suggestions. Scenarios that may be tangible in a parallel dimension, perhaps... Or in circumstances where differences in opinion can be put aside for the benefit of the majority. Ideal circumstances.

The Establishment have resources to mount plenty of counter-measures to the above, as you already allude.

That's not to say it can't be done. But in this current atmosphere of entrenched opposing views among the citizenry, it's more than just fanciful. It's highly unlikely.

[JackRiddler]

.
Quick clarifying follow-up points:

Re: voting/non-voting: I'm talking about the optics of a mass organization -- across party lines/demographics, as I stated above -- as an integral element to the voting "opt-out". NOT the fractured/complacent/indifferent "opting out" of voting that currently takes place, which is what you're referencing. To the contrary, an organized effort, under one banner, to collectively opt out of voting en masse absolutely sends a message, not only domestically, but internationally, that we As a People do NOT subscribe to the decisions made in our name.

Okay, I can't think of a more guaranteed way to split everyone along a false dichotomy. Because you're going to get millions of people who share an interest with each other instead fighting about this bullshit. It won't be economic justice and health care as a right for all, yes or no, it will be still stuck in the electoral merry go round, yes or no? What is necessary is a mass organization that, if it's not the big new third party (good luck with that), IS for the working class interest in the broadest sense (so it has to also mean justice and ecology and peace) and does NOT take ANY stand on voting whatsoever. If voting is a scam, leave it be. Such an organization should be directed at demands, not at whether or not its members happen to vote on the side. (Since that is ALL 99% of us get to do: vote on the side. If you watch a whole movie, you're spending more time than actually casting a vote usually takes, at least if you don't live in a black neighborhood of Cleveland, etc.)

Re: taxes -- yes, you're essentially right. But again, it's about a 'mass organization', a collective effort, in opting out en masse. This is where the difference lies. Not just me or a minority opting out, but a plurality. Anything that can be organized at mass scale will garner plenty of attention.

I get it. I do not see this not turning into instant medieval imprisonment and exemplary punishments of the first who try, and I wonder if the effectiveness will justify it. Workers shutting down airports, as we saw recently, gets instant results and it is much harder to solve by FBI raids or National Guard massacres. Though of course exactly that too was done at various times of labor organizing. Leave this to real Quakers. I admire them.

Mass Strikes are indeed the most viable option -- both historically and currently. It's been impactful before, and can be impactful again.

It needs to have that One Big Union idea, employed and unemployed and underemployed and houseworking all as members. Uh... WE... ARE... the... 89%? A mass working class organization, which includes mass actual worker organization but goes beyond it.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

Note the times:

1.

Mac posted this pic....so I thought it was just fine to post a pic of her ....he did it first!



...

2.

I guess it is shame on Mac....he posted this pic



...

3.

I guess it is shame on Mac....he posted this pic



...

4.

I guess it is shame on Mac....he posted this pic



...

5.

Mac posted this pic


...

That's five -- in figures: 5 -- separate times you posted that portrait photo (complete with your own demented comments) without even noticing that it is Pamela Anderson's Twitter avatar image. Why did you keep reproducing it (and keep adding your own repetitive but increasingly-bizarre comments)? What point were you trying to make about Pamela Anderson, exactly? Spell it out, explicitly. Or about me, exactly? Spell that out, too.

Note: A week ago I also posted a portrait photo of William Jefferson Clinton, also tiny, also his Twitter avatar image, to accompany one of his tweets. This can only mean - what, exactly? Spell it out.

(As for your comments on Venezuela: They reveal much more about you than you realise. I'll address them later.)

[seemslikeadream]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

According to the GOP, when poor + working people advocate for themselves, we shouldn’t listen bc they’re “irresponsible.”

Yet when higher incomes fight for working people,we shouldn’t listen bc they’re“hypocrites.”

How about we fight for the right thing bc it’s the right thing?

from Alternet

Fox News guest may have set all-time record for crazy with rant about AOC’s Green New Deal causing cannibalism

Bob Brigham / Raw StoryMarch 3, 2019
The Fox News infatuation with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortz (D-NY) continued on Saturday when a guest suggested that the Green New Deal would inevitably result in cannibalism.

Katherine Timpf, a National Review reporter, launched into a passionate rant about Ocasio-Cortez on “The Greg Gutfeld Show.”

“AOC has completely lost her marbles,” Timpf argued. “I think she’s living in bananaland.”

Less than a minute later, she had escalated to the point where Ocasio-Cortez’s “bullsh*t” was resulting in cannibalism.

Watch:
https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/fox-ne ... nnibalism/

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
‏

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted Harry Siegel
The Post put the fact that I get into cars (while proposing a plan to invest in better car technology) on their front page

Pack it up folks, the Pulitzer’s been decided. No one can rival this kind of hard-hitting journalism

[Belligerent Savant]

.

JR: It was a thought experiment (again, fanciful) to add to Elvis' (also remote) notion of an attempt at armed takeover. That said, if I ever plan a revolution I sure as hell know who to turn to for vetting my half-baked ideas


Some of the content in that NY Post article about AOC's 'carbon footprint':

.

since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign relied heavily on combustible-engine cars — taking Ubers and Lyfts instead of hopping on the subway.

In her rebuttal, the Bronx-born Congresswoman said the GND is about systemic change — not about personal gas-guzzling practices.
...
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign logged 1,049 car service transactions totaling over $23,000 between May 16, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2018, The Post found. Her campaign once booked 26 car-service transactions in a single day.

Even though her Queens HQ was just a one-minute walk to the 7 train, her campaign only made 52 metro card purchases, spending about $8,300.

And despite a high-speed rail being the cornerstone of her green strategy, the Democratic firebrand took Amtrak 18 times, compared to 66 airline transactions costing $25,174.54 during the campaign season. -NY Post

[Elvis]

^^^^ If that's the "dirt" on AOC they come up with, she should have nothing to worry about. "gas guzzling car rides!!" Hilarious.