Crazy AOC

once again, she is clueless as to the requirements for being President AND Vice president.

Boston University should rescind her diploma, she is making them look like they turn out imbeciles

you were duped gentlemen,lied to,spun a web of bullshit and served up on a platter of chicanery.

disagree with aoc all you like,totally fair,but please keep your talking point cooties to yourself.

blech....gross.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7825913/amp/AOC-says-honor-Bernie-Sanders-Vice-President.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/aoc-itd-be-an-honor-to-be-vice-president%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ijr.com/aoc-it-would-be-an-honor-to-be-bernie-sanders-vice-president/amp/

i was talking about the amazon bullshit.
already knew about the vice president comment,and the wonderful drama queen reactions.
pure fluffernutter nonsense.

How is that bullshit? She objected to their plans, they changed their plans, and her district suffered the consequence of her ignorance. Later they opened a satellite office in Manhattan I think - with 1500 jobs - and she claimed credit for that.

Maybe someone should tell the NYT, so they can issue a retraction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/nyregion/amazon-hq2-nyc.html

I suppose "singlehandedly" may not be entirely accurate. There was a small group of politicians objecting to economic growth in her district - but she was the only one with national visibility, she was the face....and she faced it up....real good.

don't know if you have noticed yet,but I tend to mainly focus on deconstructing narratives perpetuated by the MSM.

aoc was a vocal opponent,but to say it was her opposition that killed the deal is simply wrong.

I realize there is a certain amount of distrust in my opinions,but I would like to think we have gained at least respect for each other.

so I won't shower you with opinions that are already suspect.

but look into what amazon was demanding in order to even break ground on their "command center".
look into the projected impact on the economy,and infrastructure,taxpayers and who was going to be footing that bill.
look into what new York was asking for in return,which was reasonable (my opinion here) and how amazon outright refused.

there were a lot of moving parts,with many players,but the media focused on the drama and tittilation and failed miserably to truly lay out the facts in a process that had been going on for almost a year.(they did clarify later,when no one cared anymore,and buried it underneath an ocean of gobbldeegook)

both the mayor and governor came out and stated publicly the amazon deal falling through had little to do with aoc and far more to do with amazon.

but that doesn't get those tasty clicks and likes.
and complicated stories take time to uncover all the nuance and subtext.
but "AOC kills amazon deal and costs her district 25,000 jobs"
will rocket sales through the roof.

it's business,and that business is not to inform you,but to get you to react on an emotional level by appealing to your lizard brain,not your higher functions.

which is why we need each other.
we all have blind spots,including me.
narratives need to be challenged,no matter how good they may taste.

The NYT article lays responsibility on her and the city council in the last paragraph. They usually play soft with liberals, so I take note when they throw a triple protected person under the bus.

If they just picked her to blame it on, they're dumber than I imagined. After helping her get elected, making this her responsibility could cost her the seat in the next election. Why mention her at all?

all you are really doing here is explaining why you are giving the NYT credence,and that is fine and totally within your rights to do.

matt taibbi wrote an excellent article on the amazon deal,and how the taxpayer would actually be holding the bill through "subsidies" (aka corporate welfare) and huge government contracts.

even aoc came out an explained her opposition.while coumo was negotiating unilaterally,there was a growing political pushback,which got little attention (except for aoc,because that nugget sells papers).

there were TWO big points of contention the opposition had:
1.unionization would be allowed
2.2/3rds of the new jobs would be required to come from the district,and/or outlying new York districts.

amazon refused both.

furthermore,the estimated costs of the deal Cuomo had been working on would have cost the new York tax payer 1.5 billion (lowest est) up to 3 billion (highest).
with a heliopad paid for by the new York taxpayer as the cherry on top.(amazon was also demanding upgraded mass transit,specifcally the subway)

so when you broke down the deal.
amazon would be union-free,with no worker protections.
they could hire whomever,from wherever,excluding locals if they chose.
the tax payer subsidies would have equaled 22 grand per employee,essentially meaning that 1/2 the average salary would have been paid by the tax payer.
and this isn't even including the gentirification impacts.

so when certain media outlets only focus on one thing:25,000 jobs..they are ignoring a whole other part of the story.

which is my main point.

and I should add that the boroughs are incredibly diverse,both culturally and racially but one thing they do come together on is keeping big corporations OUT of their neighborhoods.

I was working in Brooklyn on a job during the summer of 2005 and Walmart was trying to purchase an old warehouse,and all the adjacent neighborhoods came out to protest.it was a sight to see my friend.

aoc opposed the amazon deal,and it appears her district agrees with her.contrary to the media kerfuffle.