Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Sluggo1]

So to be clear you are against capping someone's investment income potential in regards to price gouging but not in regards to rent control?

How are you tying investment potential to price gouging???? Give us all an example of this.

And to be clear…I am against rent control.

[valade16]

How are you tying investment potential to price gouging???? Give us all an example of this.

And to be clear…I am against rent control.

You are capping the potential profit someone can make off of their property.

Someone buys water, that is an investment designed to create more wealth by selling it at a higher price and earning a profit. Who are you to cap how much they can re-sell their own property for?

[Sluggo1]

You are capping the potential profit someone can make off of their property.

Someone buys water, that is an investment designed to create more wealth by selling it at a higher price and earning a profit. Who are you to cap how much they can re-sell their own property for?

OK. Great. Gouge em all.

[valade16]

OK. Great. Gouge em all.

Figured that was how you really felt.

[SpecialFNK]

I wanted to post what AOC said in her thread on it's own to highlight what she has done herself.

this is the same person that used words like “never again” and “concentration camps” to refer to illegal immigration detention facilities.

[Sluggo1]

I wanted to post what AOC said in her thread on it's own to highlight what she has done herself.

this is the same person that used words like “never again” and “concentration camps” to refer to illegal immigration detention facilities.

Fox News (GASP!!!!) had several tapes of dems. including Joe Biden, calling the Clinton impeachment a "lynching" and using the term "lynch mob."

I guess 15 or so years the term "Lynch" was OK --oops all right-- but now it is not.

So now it is…

queer
niggardly
uppity
OK
lynch

…as far as common words that we cannot use.

Who has that list????

[benny01]

Fox News (GASP!!!!) had several tapes of dems. including Joe Biden, calling the Clinton impeachment a "lynching" and using the term "lynch mob."

I guess 15 or so years the term "Lynch" was OK --oops all right-- but now it is not.

So now it is…

queer
niggardly
uppity
OK
lynch

…as far as common words that we cannot use.

Who has that list????

Hope you gave the old lady some bail money. You are sure to get hauled in now.

[Sluggo1]

Hope you gave the old lady some bail money. You are sure to get hauled in now.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

[GGGGG-Men]

https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/sta...894083584?s=21

[dbroncos78087]

She did do a good job. But Katie Porter is probably the best questioner in Congress. I really like her and am truly impressed each time I see her.

[SpecialFNK]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is this stupid.

https://saraacarter.com/ocasio-corte...-supremacists/

Ocasio-Cortez to Zuckerberg: Why are you partnering with ‘The Daily Caller who has ties to white supremacists’

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was questioned by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a hearing at the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday about Facebook’s fact-checking operations.

“Why Facebook is partnering with ‘the Daily Caller’, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook,” asked Ocasio-Cortez, without providing or referring to any proof as to why she’s calling ‘The Daily Caller’ a publication “with white supremacist ties” on the House floor.

“We actually don’t appoint the independent fact-checkers,” Mark Zuckerberg responded. “They go through an independent organization called the Independent Fact-Checking Network, that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.”

“So you would say that white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking?” Ocasio-Cortez continued her question.

Ocasio-Cortez went on to ask the Facebook CEO also about Facebook’s practices with political ads and how would they screen and fact check the ads.

“Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

“I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad. That’s different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you had lied,” replied Zuckerberg.

this is why ****ing morons are brainwashed against certain media, because nutjobs like AOC say this **** and people are gullible enough to believe it. it's ridiculous that people are this stupid, including AOC and anyone that wants to believe everything she says.

[Sluggo1]

What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.

[dbroncos78087]

What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.

One of the things that I like about Katie Porter is how she asks questions of the CEOs and they give an answer that directly contradicts a legal filing that their company has made in court. She did it with Facebook and Data (Mark Zuckerberg) and she's done it before. And most importantly she will do it again.

[nastynice]

https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/sta...894083584?s=21

Aoc trippin, lol

I dont see anything constructive in her inquiry. I see her asking Facebook to fact check their ads, lol, who the **** does that? The entire us media system is a lie, why us Facebook shouldering all the blame?

[GGGGG-Men]

What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.

Translated: I don’t like it so neither should you. And get those kids off my lawn!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk