Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Aquila King

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - HUGE SCANDAL!!!!

759 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bee

 

I have a feeling that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is being groomed for power.... the top job...

She just voted for Pelosi as Speaker of the House.... and if she can successfully straddle the left wing activist
and party loyalist divide she could have a shot at President in the not too distant future... ?

If she hasn't already been on one of those Young Leader Programs, I expect she will so she can fit in the
mold of the likes of Trudeau (Canada) and Macron (France) ...

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Apparently the Media is calling her AOC now, for short.

I think she is great! In that I think she believes what she says, and that she acts how she thinks she should. I can 100% respect that. Most politicians are completely sold out and would stab puppies on Youtube for cash. That said, I don't agree with her political leanings, her communist beliefs, or her economic opinions. :tu:

As to her dance video. I agree with what I read online.... She's a real threat to modern politics... Because in college she was adorable.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
17 hours ago, Aquila King said:

So apparently a new and highly scandalous video has surfaced of freshman Senator Alexandria Ocasio Cortez back in her college years.... wait for it........ dancing... 

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/gop-attempt-to-smear-ocasio-cortez-with-college-dancing-video-backfires-releases-new-video-mocking-gop/

 

Honestly man, if this is the best the GOP can come up with against her, then please keep doing it. :lol: It just made me like her even more. 

She is pretty adorable.  And it was a great video...

Unfortunately, the Left Political Socialist Indoctrination Machine washed her brain.  It is sad really, such a beautiful girl, and smart as a whip, but indoctrinated into the Socialist Machine.  She is adorable though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Looking at what a strong showing Sanders had, this women terrifies me politically.

If all this Robin Hood theft is going to go into the black hole of climate change, how is she gonna pay for all the other free crap she promises to fight for?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Looking at what a strong showing Sanders had, this women terrifies me politically.

If all this Robin Hood theft is going to go into the black hole of climate change, how is she gonna pay for all the other free crap she promises to fight for?

Shell get the three "chambers" of government to like "just pay for it".

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

So I just read the OP link and it appears that he is perpetuating fake story, no surprise. Nobody called it a scandal. Nobody in congress, except the dear victim here, mentioned anything about this. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
16 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

With all due respect, I don't think you know how this works.

Billionaires are NOT putting their own money into a business.  They put their company's money into the business.  When WalMart runs into trouble, they close stores or freeze pay or eliminate 40 hour/week jobs so they can pay less to part-timers, but the Walton family never puts any of their money into saving the stores or hiring anyone at the stores.

Just do a search for stories about CEOs and others being paid ridiculous sums of money as the businesses that they're associated with flounder and go under.

So the people making $5 million/month and more aren't hiring anyone (except as maids and gardeners and that's not a lot of people.)  I think they're not going to feel much of a sting if they pay $900,000 more per year in taxes.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
11 hours ago, Michelle said:

People do read threads they don't comment in. You have revealed at least a portion of what he posted on a public forum.

I've also seen him do it to others...in current threads.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The only problem with taxing the rich is that even at higher rates of taxation, like 75%, it isn't going to cut the Deficit much. Much less fix the National Debt. Or, at least that is what I've been led to believe.

If we're not going to fix the Debt, why bother taxing them more? Simple fairness? I'd need a better reason then, "It's not FAIR!", before I support such taxes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Youre literally just making s**t up about me. :huh:

You don't know me at all, so speak for yourself thank you.

lamo. nope i just read what you post, everyone does,  we already know plenty about you, you are one of those ***** who screams invasion of privacy, yet posts every step of their lives on FB for entire world to see. figuratively speaking  lol.  

btw, your story is trash, lol,  it's only you and your side that sees it as scandal, sorry, tried to pass it as a huge scandal. 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
17 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Maybe you should read the link I provided. JFK most definitely wasn't the first. Historically it's not even a partisan action.

I am truly guilty of not reading your link. sorry. I should have qualified my statement as being - the first prez in my lifetime to cut taxes was a democrat, JFK. And he was a damm good democrat.  My point being that today's dems would NEVER consider tax cuts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I have a feeling that this Ocacsio Cortez Woman is worrying the old guard of both parties. She is not acting like the token young person in the party (c.f. australia’s Wyatt Roy) but rather an angry/politically fired up activist. If they can’t slap her down, or pull her into line, 2020 will see a lot more young people stepping up and upsetting the Apple cart and breaking the golden rule of politics - do no harm (to your chances of re-election). 

yup.  28 years old, first run at anything,  and she beats a ten-term incumbent dem, Joe Crowley,  in the primaries.

And I suspect it was because Old Dinosaur Democrat Joe just wasn't freekin' crazy enough.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
7 hours ago, bee said:

 

I have a feeling that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is being groomed for power.... the top job...

She just voted for Pelosi as Speaker of the House.... and if she can successfully straddle the left wing activist
and party loyalist divide she could have a shot at President in the not too distant future... ?

If she hasn't already been on one of those Young Leader Programs, I expect she will so she can fit in the
mold of the likes of Trudeau (Canada) and Macron (France) ...

 

 

 

That's how I see it, Bee.     Sadly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

yep, jfk was a good democrat,  

Quote

"ask not what yourcountry can do for you, ask what you can do for yourcountry."

is not something  democrats now embrace, or even fake to believe in.   maybe that is why he was shot.  and they tried to blame Russia before as well, lol,  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
5 hours ago, joc said:

She is pretty adorable.  And it was a great video...

Unfortunately, the Left Political Socialist Indoctrination Machine washed her brain.  It is sad really, such a beautiful girl, and smart as a whip, but indoctrinated into the Socialist Machine.  She is adorable though.  

pssssst...     poison ivy

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

With all due respect, I don't think you know how this works.

Billionaires are NOT putting their own money into a business.  They put their company's money into the business. 

[BOINK]    speechless. :huh:

Quote

When WalMart runs into trouble, they close stores or freeze pay or eliminate 40 hour/week jobs so they can pay less to part-timers, but the Walton family never puts any of their money into saving the stores or hiring anyone at the stores.

"We" should not judge how owners of businesses invest their money. No system is perfect. But if the Walton family knew in advance that Big Gov was going to force them to pay into a losing cause, should it be that way,  THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN A WALTON'S TO BEGIN WITH

Quote

Just do a search for stories about CEOs and others being paid ridiculous sums of money as the businesses that they're associated with flounder and go under.

So the people making $5 million/month and more aren't hiring anyone (except as maids and gardeners and that's not a lot of people.)  I think they're not going to feel much of a sting if they pay $900,000 more per year in taxes.

Take the "incentive" away, Kenemet, and wee're all done raising new, up coming industrailists of all kinds.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
23 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I am truly guilty of not reading your link. sorry. I should have qualified my statement as being - the first prez in my lifetime to cut taxes was a democrat, JFK. And he was a damm good democrat.  My point being that today's dems would NEVER consider tax cuts.

Why would they? It's a demonstrable fact that the Republican led tax cuts only help the wealthy at the expense of low and middle income citizens. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

The only problem with taxing the rich is that even at higher rates of taxation, like 75%, it isn't going to cut the Deficit much. Much less fix the National Debt. Or, at least that is what I've been led to believe.

If we're not going to fix the Debt, why bother taxing them more? Simple fairness? I'd need a better reason then, "It's not FAIR!", before I support such taxes.

If a politician used the excuse "pare off the debt" as a means of raising taxes, the first thing I would do is call him/her a liar.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Why would they? It's a demonstrable fact that the Republican led tax cuts only help the wealthy at the expense of low and middle income citizens. 

Well, you're frankly very wrong on this. See the post I made with the employment rate in the US now.  Many people with jobs that would have otherwise been on welfare.

and BTW, the middle class people certainly DID get tax breaks. Everyone won, except greedy democrats.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
42 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Why would they? It's a demonstrable fact that the Republican led tax cuts only help the wealthy at the expense of low and middle income citizens. 

You have a "demonstratable" link? I like my "facts" backed up by facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You have a "demonstratable" link? I like my "facts" backed up by facts.

Sure.

And one analysis found that workers only gained 2 cents per hour in bonuses, while companies got over $50 billion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
42 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, you're frankly very wrong on this. See the post I made with the employment rate in the US now.  Many people with jobs that would have otherwise been on welfare.

and BTW, the middle class people certainly DID get tax breaks. Everyone won, except greedy democrats.

Yeah, what you claim here is simply not true, regarding the middle class, and what you claim about the correlation between the tax cuts and unemployment rate is also a distortion. What you have with unemployment is correlation without causation. In other words, you can't prove that the unemployment rate has been affected by the tax cuts (and if you look at the unemployment rate over the past 8 years or so, it's been steadily falling at pretty much the same rate throughout).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Sure.

And one analysis found that workers only gained 2 cents per hour in bonuses, while companies got over $50 billion.

50 billion per hour? What does that 50 billion come out to per hour, per business? I'll check your link. I want apples and apples. Not types of apples versus number of apple trees.

Edit: Current estimates are there are 125 million full time employed people in the US. And full time is a 40 hour work week. Which is about 2100 hours in a year. So lets say 2000 times 125 million time 2 cents. That comes to.... 5 billion dollars.

So, in general, I'd agree that this is a bit low for the employee side. Though it is a number from a self admitted left leaning, and probably then using cherry picked info, organization that has a political agenda to press. I'll look to see if I can find any other estimated number.

2nd Edit: 

Quote

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a middle-income household would on average get a tax cut of $930 this year, lifting their after-tax income by about 1.6 percent. 

Link...

So, at 930 dollars per year and assuming two workers, and assuming 2000 hours, that is an additional 23 cents per hour.... or, using my previous calculation.... 57 billion dollars. Or, about the same as the supposed "bonus" to businesses.

If this is true, then it does seem very fair.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, at 930 dollars per year and assuming two workers, and assuming 2000 hours, that is 23 cents per hour.... or, using my previous calculation.... 57 billion dollars. Or, about the same as the supposed "bonus" to businesses.

Except your link is simply projections (and generous ones at that), while mine is from December and looks at actual results.

This has all been widely reported for months now. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it to be honest. What I'm saying isn't even slightly controversial. The tax cuts were for billionaires, not citizens.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Except your link is simply projections (and generous ones at that), while mine is from December and looks at actual results.

This has all been widely reported for months now. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it to be honest. What I'm saying isn't even slightly controversial. The tax cuts were for billionaires, not citizens.

Funny how still these facts are only coming out of the left leaning sources.

I read the second link and they almost openly admit they specifically sought out data to support what they wanted. They specifically dismissed bonuses, and did their own math to account for inflation. So, right there their numbers are being adjusted from real world gains by everyday citizens. What is that 2 cents actually, when not accounted for inflation, and includes bonuses? Maybe..... 23 cents? But that doesn't press their political agenda if the numbers actually look good, so they need "adjusting"....

Edit: Here is a link to a article from October by the left leaning Washington post which gives some interesting numbers...

Link...

Where it says whites got an average of 2000 dollars saved, while blacks only got 800 dollars. Which, I agree, on the face if it is messed up, but I suspect simply reflects current hiring practices. But, none the less refutes soundly the 2 cents per hour myth. Even at 800 dollars over a year that is closer to 20 cents per hour more.

2nd Edit: 

So assuming these numbers from October are good, then we have whites (70% of population) making 2000 more per year. So we need to increase that 57 billion to about 100 billion. And I saw in your first link that announced bonuses were "only" going to amount to 7 billion.... So. That's MORE than twice again the "despicable" 50 billion that businesses got....

Sounds more then fair now....

At least according to the demonstratable facts... Facts from left bias sources.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.