AOC and Dark Politics

[Starlight]

"Now that I've used these same loopholes and 'dirty money' to get myself elected, I'm going to complain about how corrupt the system is."
-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

OK, that wasn't nice. She makes a good point even if she is a hypocrite.

She is part of the Justice Democrats caucus who commit to taking no corporate PAC or big donor money. So she absolutely lives out her anti-corruption views.

This makes your slander of her with your falsified quote above all the more absurd.

[carpedm9587]

Are not the wealthy citizens?

Yes - they are.

Do not Unions have a say?

All individuals and groups should have an opportunity to have a say.

Can I not partner with other like minded people and address the government.

Yes - you can.

And you are trying to make all things equal.

No - I am not. And usually, when someone slips into superlatives, they've completely missed the point, or are building a strawman.

So Michael Moore, the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC etc... (corporations all) get to attack politicians up to election day, but me and my pro-life friends don't?

No. And no one singled out any one group. YOU are doing that.

That is exactly why I don't want you or the government in control of this.

The entire purpose of "government" is to "govern." When there is inequity and injustice, it is the proper role of government to establish norms and laws to restore equity and justice.


You know what really amazes me? Based on our previous discussions, and some things you have said here, you strike me as someone who is either near the top of the 80%, or the bottom of the 20%. So you are one of those (fiscally) "small people." Your voice cannot be heard except by joining with others, and even if you do that you can be shouted down by the person with the biggest checkbook in a heartbeat. You are the person with a small soapbox standing on a street corner with your hand-printed leaflets, and the millionaire has their 20,000 watt system and enough money to buy parade licenses and offer everyone on the block a gift for coming to listen to him - and you are happily defending them. They have you so convinced of the "injustice" of saying, "umm... wait a sec...public sphere - we should all have equal access" and how it means you are "squelching their voice" and "1st amendment!"

The wealthy have weaponized the 1st amendment against the little person, and you are a member of the "little person" club and you are happily cheering them on. It is truly unbelievable. It reminds me of "What's the Matter with Kansas." A good book - BTW. You should read it.

[carpedm9587]

So the ends justify the means.

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about what AOC did, AFAICT. She followed the rules as they have been set down. Now she'd like to advocate for those rules to be changed. I see no problem.

[Mountain Man]

She is part of the Justice Democrats caucus who commit to taking no corporate PAC or big donor money. So she absolutely lives out her anti-corruption views.

This makes your slander of her with your falsified quote above all the more absurd.

Except she did accept money from corporations and "big donor" money. If you follow the link, you can see exactly who donated to her campaign.

Then there's this...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...eres-the-truth

[Mountain Man]

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about what AOC did, AFAICT. She followed the rules as they have been set down. Now she'd like to advocate for those rules to be changed. I see no problem.

Except she's now arguing that it is immoral, so...

[Starlight]

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about what AOC did, AFAICT. She followed the rules as they have been set down. Now she'd like to advocate for those rules to be changed. I see no problem.

You're letting MM's lies about AOC confuse you on this issue. Many democrats "play by the current rules" while advocating they be changed. That, in general, is the fairly standard democrat position.

However, AOC is part of a new group called Justice Democrats (who had half a dozen members elected in 2018 one of whom is AOC) that pledges to not play by the current rules and instead live out the anti-corruption policies that they themselves advocate for. As such, AOC did not take money from big donors or corporate PACs during her campaign.

[Starlight]

Except she did accept money from corporations and "big donor" money. If you follow the link, you can see exactly who donated to her campaign.

Get some reading comprehension skills. Your own link made clear that the donations were from employees who happen to work at companies, not the companies themselves.

[carpedm9587]

Except she did accept money from corporations and "big donor" money. If you follow the link, you can see exactly who donated to her campaign.

Then there's this...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...eres-the-truth

Umm... so, first, as I said, there is nothing actually illegal or immoral about accepting these donations.

Second, if you read the blaze article, the donations came from employees at the firms, one of whom happens to be a managing partner. They didn't come from the firm. Now I have no idea if she did or did not accept PAC and Corporate money - I haven't dug into it. But this blaze article does not make the case.

It would be like someone claiming that your church "Accepted Donations from Planned Parenthood" because two of the parishioners work there and donated to the church. I think we both know how such a claim would be received. And even the "managing partner" isn't an issue. What are you trying to say? If I happen to own a business I can't make a political donation without it being seen as a "corporate donation? The idea is ludicrous.

Furthermore, I have no problem with "corporate donations," until they swamp the campaign raising the spectre of purchasing undo influence. Your own link shows small and large individual donations - and no corporate donations. There is also $75K in PAC money, and I don't know anything about that. However, it represents less than 3.6% of her total raised and is about 20% of her unspent cash-on-hand.

I know that many of the right hate this young lady - but let's not "make things up," or exaggerate, huh?

[carpedm9587]

Except she's now arguing that it is immoral, so...

I believe the argument she is making has to do with letting corporate money dictate how you do your job.

And you still have not shown that she received "corporate money."

[seer]

No. And no one singled out any one group. YOU are doing that.

Did you completely miss my point? Citizens United (a pro traditional family, smaller government group) was targeted. While other corporations like Michael Moore's movie company, the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC etc... all got to attack or defend politicians up to election day. Using the air waves, print and movies. Are you willing to also put the same restrictions on them 30-60 days out from an election?

[carpedm9587]

You're letting MM's lies about AOC confuse you on this issue. Many democrats "play by the current rules" while advocating they be changed. That, in general, is the fairly standard democrat position.

I'm not confused, Star. I recognize that sometimes you have to play the game so you can change the game. As long as one is not crossing an ethical boundary, I have no problem with it. I think AOC is a bit different, however, as you note below.

However, AOC is part of a new group called Justice Democrats (who had half a dozen members elected in 2018 one of whom is AOC) that pledges to not play by the current rules and instead live out the anti-corruption policies that they themselves advocate for. As such, AOC did not take money from big donors or corporate PACs during her campaign.

Do you know where the $75K in PAC money comes from? If it is not corporate PACs - what kind of PACs did she receive money from?

[carpedm9587]

Did you completely miss my point?

Nope. There is a difference between "missing the point" and "disagreeing with the point." That distinction is lost on many here.

Citizens United (a pro traditional family, smaller government group) was targeted. While other corporations like Michael Moore's movie company, the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC etc... all got to attack or defend politicians up to election day. Using the air waves, print and movies. Are you willing to also put the same restrictions on them 30-60 days out from an election?

The same restrictions should be placed on everyone, Seer. All sides - all contexts. Limits on the amount corporations and individuals can contribute to any form of political advertising that supports or endorses one candidate in favor of another, or denigrates one candidate in favor of another.

News media are going to be a tougher nut to crack. Reporting the news should be "reporting the news." Unfortunately, the erosion of journalistic neutrality has created a mess there. I have no idea how to fix it.

[Mountain Man]

Umm... so, first, as I said, there is nothing actually illegal or immoral about accepting these donations.

The question is, did Cortez decide to decry this as immoral before or after she took advantage of it to win her election?

[Starlight]

The question is, did Cortez decide to decry this as immoral before or after she took advantage of it to win her election?

The question is are you stupid and dumb enough to actually believe your own claims here, or are you willfully trying to deceive others on this issue?

[Mountain Man]

Get some reading comprehension skills. Your own link made clear that the donations were from employees who happen to work at companies, not the companies themselves.

If they were individual donations then why do they list a corporate affiliation? You do realize that it is a common practice for companies to donate to a candidate through their employees for legal reasons, right?

And you ignored the second link showing she received money directly from corporations.

The disclosures show that Ocasio-Cortez received $3,399 from JP Morgan Chase, a major Wall Street corporate bank, and $2,700 from Elevation Partners, a New York-based private equity firm with nearly $2 billion in assets.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...eres-the-truth

As the saying goes, socialists don't like rich people, but they do like rich people's money.

I'm just curious if she grew a conscience before or after she benefited from the system that she now insists is corrupt.