Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Alexandria Ocasoi-Cortez - Needs her own thread.....

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

You realize that the Daily Wire is the political equivalent of the Weekly World News?

Muda's current cult like fascination with AOC does not allow him to discern a decent source from trash.

The blinders are on.   

  • Sit and spin 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Monumental Hypocrisy: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-monumental-hypocrisy/

Quote

She mounts her high horse to rail against ‘dark money,’ but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

In one of her many viral social-media moments, freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio last month played a so-called “corruption game,” grilling witnesses at a House Oversight Committee hearing about the influence of super PACs and “dark money.” By some measures, the video of her questioning became the “most-viewed Twitter video of any politician,” including President Trump.

For her, the optics were perfect. Here was an idealistic young socialist using clever cross-examination techniques to expose for all the world the way in which savvy political operators can conceal misdeeds and hide from the public the sources of their financial support. Her questions generated a rapturous response across the length and breadth of the progressive Internet.

Fast-forward one month. Here’s Alana Goodman, writing for The Washington Examiner:

Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat’s chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of “dark money” in politics.

And here’s the Washington Post, picking up on Alana’s report:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show.

You can read the FEC complaint yourself, but in a nutshell: It describes an arrangement where Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founded two PACs — Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress — and then funneled large sums of money from those PACs into limited-liability companies he controlled, without disclosing Ocasio-Cortez’s involvement and without disclosing how that money was ultimately disbursed. Further, the complaint claims that Ocasio-Cortez was a board member of Justice Democrats when it disbursed these funds.

In fact, as a comprehensive report by Andrew Kerr at the Daily Caller News Foundation notes, Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti had legal control over the Justice Democrats PAC while it was supporting Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.

San Bernardino County Says No to Big Renewables

Enter the Disrupter

What Left-Wing Populism Looks Like

Trump’s Reagan Moment — and Ours

Backing Reparations Legislation Hurts Democrats

Moving Target

Asked about Ilhan Omar, Democrats Turn Focus to GOP

Martha McSally’s Sexual-Assault Story Isn’t about Feminist Politics

Trump ‘Would Be Very Disappointed’ If North Korea Rebuilt Nuclear Sites

Atlantic Writer Compares R. Kelly to Brett Kavanaugh

Pelosi: Omar’s Comments Not ‘Intentionally Anti-Semitic’

Tlaib to File Impeachment Articles against Trump

Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism Splits House Democrats

Trump Should Take a Page from Reagan’s Playbook in North Korea Talks

Nielsen: ‘Illegal Immigration Is Simply Spiraling Out of Control’

More articles

Previous articles

POLITICS & POLICY

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Monumental Hypocrisy

By DAVID FRENCH

March 6, 2019 3:29 PM

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) listens to the testimony of former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., February 27, 2019. (Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS)

She mounts her high horse to rail against ‘dark money,’ but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

In one of her many viral social-media moments, freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio last month played a so-called “corruption game,” grilling witnesses at a House Oversight Committee hearing about the influence of super PACs and “dark money.” By some measures, the video of her questioning became the “most-viewed Twitter video of any politician,” including President Trump.

For her, the optics were perfect. Here was an idealistic young socialist using clever cross-examination techniques to expose for all the world the way in which savvy political operators can conceal misdeeds and hide from the public the sources of their financial support. Her questions generated a rapturous response across the length and breadth of the progressive Internet.

Fast-forward one month. Here’s Alana Goodman, writing for The Washington Examiner:

Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat’s chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of “dark money” in politics.

And here’s the Washington Post, picking up on Alana’s report:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show.

You can read the FEC complaint yourself, but in a nutshell: It describes an arrangement where Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founded two PACs — Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress — and then funneled large sums of money from those PACs into limited-liability companies he controlled, without disclosing Ocasio-Cortez’s involvement and without disclosing how that money was ultimately disbursed. Further, the complaint claims that Ocasio-Cortez was a board member of Justice Democrats when it disbursed these funds.

In fact, as a comprehensive report by Andrew Kerr at the Daily Caller News Foundation notes, Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti had legal control over the Justice Democrats PAC while it was supporting Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.

What’s wrong with this? Well, apart from the obvious potential for financial self-dealing, Ocasio-Cortez’s team may well have violated disclosure laws and contribution limits. Moreover, as we know from Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and the ongoing campaign-finance investigation of President Trump, if evidence emerges that Ocasio-Cortez or Chakrabarti committed knowing or willful violations of campaign-finance law, then they could face criminal prosecution.

Interestingly, Justice Democrats last year posted a lengthy explanation for its unusual arrangement, outlining why it dumped PAC money into limited-liability companies. Crucially, it does not say that the PAC did so without engaging in any meaningful disclosure. Instead, it essentially argues that we should trust their good will, that they kept “prices as low as possible” while still satisfying FEC requirements.

In other words, the message is “Trust us, please.” But a key purpose of campaign-finance disclosure laws is to remove trust in favor of mandated transparency.

At the very least, hypocrisy abounds. It is simply stunning that Ocasio-Cortez would mount such a very high moral horse and berate witnesses at a congressional hearing while this “dark money” skeleton lurks in her closet. The very best possible read on her actions is that she read ambiguities into the law to her maximum advantage. A more realistic view is that she and her campaign chair (and now chief of staff) creatively evaded the obvious intent of campaign-finance law and will now rely on FEC gridlock and her enormous reservoir of progressive goodwill to skate straight through this scandal.

America’s byzantine campaign-finance regulations comprehensively and wrongly treat political speech as second-class speech, regulating it to a level that would likely shock the Founders. But these statutes and regulations are still binding. They’re binding on Donald Trump, and they’re binding on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Moreover, PAC disclosure rules and contribution limits are not obscure elements of campaign-finance law. As Ocasio-Cortez herself demonstrated at length in her viral moment last month, they’re a highly visible part of the ongoing public debate.

It will be an interesting irony if the FEC concludes that Ocasio-Cortez’s unusual financial arrangements pass legal muster. The champion of transparency and the enemy of “dark money” would have pioneered a new way to enrich friends and allies and hide campaign activities from the public eye. But then again, why should we be surprised? If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the long and sordid history of world socialism, it’s that the leaders of the movement always find a way to do very well while they purport to work for the public good.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should support eliminating limits on campaign contributions: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/07/limits-campaign-contributions-hurt-newcomers-like-aoc-column/3083429002/

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the strongest advocates for reducing the influence of  dark money of undisclosed origin on political campaigns, is under fire after her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, allegedly  funneled more than $1 million from two political action committees into two of his companies, possibly in violation of campaign finance laws.

At this point, it is unclear whether this was unintentional or a purposeful attempt to break the law. Either way, the allegations underscore the reality of U.S. campaign finance laws: They are often overreaching, difficult to understand and overly burdensome for candidates.

Moreover, by making fundraising more difficult, they harm "outsider" candidates more than established incumbents. Whether this was an innocent mistake by a first-time candidate or done on purpose, these allegations show just how difficult it is to work within such a highly restrictive system.

Campaign finance laws benefit powerful incumbents while hurting candidates with fewer resources.

Notoriously complex and seldom understood, compliance with campaign finance regulations is both costly and difficult. It is no surprise that grassroots campaigns like the one Ocasio-Cortez ran can seldom afford to retain one of the few experts in the field or keep track of the thousands of pages of campaign finance regulations. Compliance alone is a tremendous barrier to entry for lesser-known candidates who nonetheless want to run for public office.

To make matters more complicated, the regulatory landscape is constantly changing. Instead of making it easy for candidates to comply with the rules, the Federal Election Commission is constantly adding regulations and reinterpreting existing ones — often on a  weekly basis. A well-established campaign practice that is legal today might be banned tomorrow. This raises the question: How are candidates supposed to structure a campaign when the rules are constantly changing under their feet?

...

Take Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat who was against the Vietnam War when it was unpopular to take that position, and who used large contributions to fund his primary challenge against President Lyndon Johnson in 1968. The money helped get his message out. His  success in the New Hampshire primary helped make Johnson a single-term president and shift public opinion on the war. This would not have been possible if campaign finance contribution limits had crippled his campaign before he even started. McCarthy, who was as liberal as they come, was unsurprisingly a lifelong opponent of modern campaign finance laws.

Ocasio-Cortez, like McCarthy, wants to make big changes in Washington, but this takes money. It's the reality of running for public office, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, incumbent or freshman, charlatan or sincere.

Some Democrats are under the illusion that eliminating money from campaigns will remove corrupt politicians or only hurt the people they disagree with, leaving the crusaders for justice unscathed. But they're just hurting themselves and making it harder for candidates like Ocasio-Cortez to navigate the regulatory gauntlet that is campaign finance law.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting support from an unlikely source ...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/geraldo-rivera-goes-off-script-091605566.html

FTA:

For the second day in a row, Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera defended Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a frequent target of ridicule on the conservative network. 

“I may be the only person in the country who supports both Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” Rivera told Martha MacCallum on Wednesday.

...

On Wednesday, Rivera went even further in his defense of Ocasio-Cortez, slamming the “bogus” talking points used against her, including the ones getting plenty of air on his own network:   “To be so harsh on her, as if the Green New Deal was going to be legislation that’s gonna go into effect and cows can’t fart and airplanes can’t fly, I think that that is a bogus way of looking at her and the class that she represents. This is the most diverse, it is in many ways the youngest, it is the most integrated Congress we’ve ever had. Let them express these ideas.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 4:54 PM, foxbat said:

Let them express these ideas.” 

Nobody is pushing to shut down this "expression of ideas".   But one should be prepared for debate and criticism once those ideas are expressed, or is it this debate and criticism that should be suppressed?

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Nobody is pushing to shut down this "expression of ideas".   But one should be prepared for debate and criticism once those ideas are expressed, or is it this debate and criticism that should be suppressed?

 

 

This IS the point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Nobody is pushing to shut down this "expression of ideas".   But one should be prepared for debate and criticism once those ideas are expressed, or is it this debate and criticism that should be suppressed?

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

This IS the point.

The line quoted was Rivera's.  Nonetheless, I don't think anyone has an issue with debate, but what she's getting from most people, especially on Fox, is she's crazy, she's a lunatic, she has big teeth and eyes, and also an extreme debate on the far-end of the spectrum that's not about debate, but instead about shutdown.  For example, someone might make the statement that there should be a high-speed "autobahn" between Chicago and Indy that would have no upper limit ... the proposal then goes on to point out several benefits.  If AOC proposed it, there would be memes about bullet cars and how other cities with these are all socialist.  While an unlimited-speed autobahn might well be an unattainable possibility, is there indeed benefit to a protected, separated higher-speed dedicated road between the two cities where the speed might be limited to 100 mph as opposed to unlimited?  What does that do to the benefits described in the original proposal and, does it still warrant a look even at decreased benefits or do the decreased benefits end up making it unfeasible.  In either case, a debate about the idea rather than the person's teeth or age or eyes or college dancing is probably more productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez: Be 'Excited' About 'Being Automated Out Of Work,' Tax Corporations At 90%: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44473/ocasio-cortez-be-excited-about-being-automated-out-ryan-saavedra

Quote

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said on Saturday that people should be "excited" about "being automated out of work" and suggested that she supports taxing corporations at 90%.

 

Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks while speaking at the left-leaning South by Southwest Conference & Festival in Austin, Texas — where she also said America was in a state of "garbage" and suggested that former President Ronald Reagan was a racist.

"We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work," Ocasio-Cortez said. "We should not feel nervous about, you know, the toll booth collector not having to collect tolls anymore."

"We should be excited by that," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die, and that is at its core a problem. And so there are a lot of different solutions— a lot of different proposed, uh, ideas about how we go about that."

Ocasio-Cortez then appeared to support Bill Gates' idea of "taxing robots at 90 percent," explaining: "what that means— what he’s really talking about is taxing corporations at 90 percent, um, but it’s easier to say tax a robot."

....

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devin Nunes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Square Off Over Straw Bans, Socialism: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/11/devin-nunes-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-squ

Quote

Plastic straws are back in the public eye, after two of America's more ridiculous representatives squared off about the little suckers and the potentially Orwellian consequences of banning them.

On Saturday, Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) tweeted about a recent dining experience in which a fearful waitress asked his family if they wanted straws with their drinks.

At restaurant tonight waitress asks if we want straws. Says she has to ask now in fear of "THE STRAW POLICE". Welcome to Socialism in California!

— Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) March 10, 2019

Nunes' tweet references California's new straw-on-request law, passed in September 2018, and which went into effect in January 2019. The law requires servers to ask patrons at full-service restaurants if they want a straw before giving them one.

Calling straw bans socialism is hyperbolic—although they might be a good example of "late socialism"—but Nunes' server wasn't wrong that eating establishments have something to fear from this latest restriction on how they can serve their customers.

California's army of health inspectors are empowered to enforce this straw policy, making them Nunes' "straw police." Handing out unsolicited plastic straws will net a food service business a formal warning for the first two violations. A third violation could earn them a $25 fine.

The original version of California's straw-on-request policy would have allowed jail time for violating, although that was stripped out of the final bill. Local bans like San Francisco's are far more onerous, and come with fines as high as $500.

Here in Washington, D.C., which started enforcing a straw ban earlier this year, there is indeed a "straw cop" walking the pettiest beat in the country.

For Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), Nunes' warnings of the perils of straw socialism weren't just over-the-top; they were fake news.

The best part about the GOP-Fox propaganda machine is that Republican Congressmen actually believe + consume it uncritically, get duped themselves, which lead them to make statements like this

(Another one thought I got paid for the KDTH Netflix doc too- I didn't get a dime!) https://t.co/NSMkUhoD2a

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 11, 2019
 

It's unclear if the Ocasio-Cortez's tweet was questioning the very existence of straw ban or just Nunes' attempt to tie it to socialism. The congresswoman herself, while silent on plastic straws, saw fit in a recent interview to bash plastic bags.

Regardless, her tweet suggests a rather dismissive attitude toward petty restrictions that most people rightly see as irksome government overreach, and that businesses and their employees have every right to be concerned about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez takes a swing at Reagan -- Here's what she doesn't get about our 40th president: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ocasio-cortez-takes-a-swing-at-reagan-heres-what-she-doesnt-get-about-our-40th-president

Quote

This week on the new liberal playground, SXSW in Austin, freshman Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threw sand in the eyes of capitalism while continuing her sing-song of socialism.  Amongst those in the crosshairs of her juvenile rantings were our 32nd president, FDR, a Democrat who authored the New Deal, and our 40th President – Ronald Reagan – who was criticized for “screwing over working class Americans.”

While you have to admire her spunk and passion, perhaps it would benefit Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to check her facts, listen more, talk less and learn from those who have gone before her – including the widely beloved and admired Ronald Reagan.  He not only inspired our nation, but in many ways changed the world.  That’s quite a resume for her, a rookie, to be taking a swing at.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant, it’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”  AOC, and much of her generation, sadly epitomize this quote. And the irony is that only someone who lives in a free society can even make those claims and talk about embracing socialism as she does.

AOC and the progressive left are in love with an illusion, the virtual reality of socialism - the hologram of its promised benefits, rather than the realities of what it actually is.

The truth is there is no historic precedence for the success of socialism or anything the progressive left is currently peddling.  In fact, there is voluminous evidence to the contrary – the collapse of Venezuela being Exhibit A.  How can you ignore that tragic political and humanitarian crisis playing out before our very eyes while saying somehow our version of socialism will be better or different?

Socialism has begun to parade itself like a proud peacock, fanning out its beautiful feathers of enticement and entitlement with a promise of equity.  Its colorful plumes draw our attention to an assortment of environmentally friendly offerings – all which promise to improve our lives, save our planet and earn the admiration of the world.  We are hypnotized by the Technicolor – lost in visions of splendor. Yet will any of it truly improve the lives of Americans? Resoundingly, no.

...

AOC is a product of the transformation of the American education system from a place of learning to a place of political indoctrination.  She is confident in her ideology because she believes that if she is morally right then facts and statistics don’t really matter.  What a dangerous platform for a leader of her position and following to stand upon.

In fact, the true danger of her ideas and future proposed legislation is not in what she and her progressive colleagues are telling us.  The true danger is in what they are NOT telling us.  The danger of omission.

The danger of omission is that all these seemingly too-good-to-be-true promises are indeed just that. Too good to be true.  Absolutely none of what they are proposing is possible to provide or feasible to guarantee for everyone in America - especially as the number of people who would be entitled to benefits continues to grow every single day via illegal border crossings.

In addition, the underlying danger of taking the bait of all of these supposed freebies and promised benefits is the hook that lies just beneath.  The hook of government control.  While the idea of safety, security, health and prosperity for everyone is enticing, if it comes without personal cost then it also comes without personal choice.  For every bit of reliance on government you embrace, you sacrifice much more in freedom. And once you surrender, it’s hard, if not impossible, to reclaim.

Free doesn’t equate best.  To most people, confidence in a preferred outcome is something still worth paying for.  Yet in listening to the increasingly progressive left one would think that the utopia of perfect American life will be achieved by government having greater influence and control over our lives. Is there anything the government does that you want more of?  Yet the left continues to promote larger government. More bureaucracy.  More power in the hands of Washington.  Less power in your hands.

Ronald Reagan warned us against socialism or any form of greater government influence or control, saying: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."  We would be wise to heed his warning and remember that government is rarely the solution to our problems – it often IS the problem.  Government doesn’t make your life better.  Only YOU can make your life better.

....

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez hits NRA after New Zealand shooting: 'What good are your thoughts and prayers?': https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434190-ocasio-cortez-calls-out-nra-after-new-zealand-shootings-what-good-are-your

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Friday tore into the National Rifle Association (NRA) after at least one gunman opened fire at two New Zealand mosques, leaving at least 49 people dead.

The New York lawmaker condemned the fatal attack on Twitter, focusing her message on the American gun group.

“At 1st I thought of saying, 'Imagine being told your house of faith isn’t safe anymore.' But I couldn’t say ‘imagine,’” the lawmaker wrote, citing the deadly shootings at a Charleston, S.C., church, a Pittsburgh synagogue and a Sutherland Springs, Texas, church.

“What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?” She added.

Ocasio-Cortez noted that “thoughts and prayers” is a reference to the NRA phrase she says is “used to deflect conversation away from policy change during tragedies.”

(“Thoughts and prayers” is reference to the NRA’s phrase used to deflect conversation away from policy change during tragedies. Not directed to PM Ardern, who I greatly admire.)

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 15, 2019
...

So the phrase "thought and prayers" is used exclusively by the NRA and it's members?  And does New Zealand have the same constitutional protections and laws regarding gun ownership as the U.S. does?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Ocasio-Cortez hits NRA after New Zealand shooting: 'What good are your thoughts and prayers?': https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434190-ocasio-cortez-calls-out-nra-after-new-zealand-shootings-what-good-are-your

So the phrase "thought and prayers" is used exclusively by the NRA and it's members?  And does New Zealand have the same constitutional protections and laws regarding gun ownership as the U.S. does?

 

 

Actually NZ has MUCH stricter gun laws than the US.  

BTW - SF wasn't aware the NRA even exists in NZ.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

Actually NZ has MUCH stricter gun laws than the US.  

BTW - SF wasn't aware the NRA even exists in NZ.......

 

Making inroads next door in Australia and globally.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-03/nra-goes-global-with-its-pro-gun-agenda

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/682350059/what-the-nra-is-doing-as-part-of-its-effort-to-go-global

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...