Yeah, that'll work

Did she really say this?

Dayum, it takes almost zero effort to cite a source, but memers on both sides just don't seem to bother.

Probably because being accurate makes for a less appealing meme.

Trust me, I know. sigh... (<<<--- note: laughing at self)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/22/alexandria_ocasio-cortez_americans_should_just_say_no_to_going_back_to_work_after_reopening_society.html

See below as to why I stopped providing sources

most jobs are ran by government-subsidized companies, and we need the govt. to serve the people, not the people to serve the govt. is she wrong in that regard?

That's not at all what she is saying. So you are wrong in that regard.

aight explain what she's saying to me

She isn't saying anything about "government subsidized companies", at all.

AOC: ""When we have this discussion about going back or reopening, I think a lot people should just say 'no,' we’re not going back to that. We’re not going back to working 70 hour weeks just so that we can put food on the table and not even feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives.""

Nothing in there is even close to your red herring analysis. Do better.

"She isn't saying anything about "government subsidized companies", at all"

the people who like her know that government-subsidized companies exist. politicians are corrupt and lobbyists are tricking them into handing free money to wall st, and she's made up a way of getting the public to protest said corrupt politicians. they'll always say "don't worry! things will be back to normal!". no they won't. this pandemic has proved how broken america's system is.

what aoc said is technically just. she said "... not even feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives" in response to our corrupt politicians thinking about themselves more than the people who go to work everyday, and it makes no difference for people to work when the politicians don't care about them.

"the people who like her know that government-subsidized companies exist."

Move that goalpost. It doesn't matter what she knows exists or doesn't exist. It's not what she is discussing. Again this is so illogical its beyond the pale of debate. This notion that beacuse somebody knows "X" exist in the universe doesn't mean that is related to her topic discussion of "Y".

AOC: When we talk about this idea of 'reopening society' you know, only in America, does the President, when the President tweets about liberation, does he mean go back to work,"

This has nothing to do with anything you are talking about, AT ALL. What she is clearly bemoaning is the way in America how work is viewed as freedom, not that "there are companies who employ lobbyist who seek our tax dollars to their own benefit" or what other nonsense you claim. She despises employers, she resents people who she believes are beholden to "slave masters".

"Move that goalpost. It doesn't matter what she knows exists or doesn't exist"

whatever she's talking about, it's almost certain to correlate to the corruption in congress.

AOC: When we talk about this idea of 'reopening society' you know, only in America, does the President, when the President tweets about liberation, does he mean go back to work

"What she is clearly bemoaning is the way in America how work is viewed as freedom"

that's hardly what she means. she's talking about how it's frustrating that america, the so-called free country, means living paycheck-to-paycheck for the majority of people. going back to being a cog in the machine that doesn't work for them. if you actually talk to people outside of your echo chamber, you'll learn about these people who can't live the american dream despite having a job

"is consistency not a factor here? is she not allowed to make statements with what she believes just because she said something that didn't include those exact words?"

Let the retard roll!

More importantly, is she not allowed to make statements that are independent of one another that are to be examined on their own merit, devoid of an outside party placing their own subjective views of what they believe is the unspoken underlying issue?

Apparently for you, the answer is no. Everything must circle back to the "corruption of congress and the evils of lobbyist".

As I said previously had she been talking about cotton candy, you would tie it to the corrupt sugar lobbyist.

Perhaps its better to simply look at HER WORDS AS SHE SAYS THEM without intertwining what you believe is the unspoken message, which you can't confirm, and therefore are simply speculating.

"Let the retard roll!"

more damage control from someone who can't debate for a dime.

"Apparently for you, the answer is no. Everything must circle back to the "corruption of congress and the evils of lobbyist"."

so this has nothing to do with the people aoc preaches against?

"Perhaps its better to simply look at HER WORDS AS SHE SAYS THEM without intertwining what you believe is the unspoken message, which you can't confirm, and therefore are simply speculating."

can confirm. her victory in new york was an upset victory, and the establishment don't like her.

"i'm not telling the future here. i'm stating the past."

You are stating that past topics is tied to the present topics. This is fortune telling or mind reading. YOU DON"T KNOW THAT

"so this has nothing to do with the people aoc preaches against?"

READ AGAIN...you should examine her words for what she says at the time, and not what she has said before. You are speculating that your assumed relation between the topics is her intent...BUT YOU DONT KNOW THAT. Neither do I, which is why I avoid "fortunetelling".

"you should examine her words for what she says at the time, and not what she has said before. You are speculating that your assumed relation between the topics is her intent...BUT YOU DONT KNOW THAT"

what she says does leave something to be desired, particularly as to why she wants us to abandon our jobs when we "return to normalcy".

"fortunetelling"

... i'm not telling the future here. i'm stating the past.

"whatever she's talking about, it's almost certain to correlate to the corruption in congress."

Holy shit. No. Sorry. This is sad.

"that's hardly what she means. she's talking about how it's frustrating that america, the so-called free country, means living paycheck-to-paycheck for the majority of people."

Look at you, you can't even be intellectually honest. I said this down further, but your "rational self" stopped reading, or pretended not to see it. So let me help you, again I SAID " She despises employers, she resents people who she believes are beholden to "slave masters".

Clearly referencing the "paycheck to paycheck" line you are claiming she is talking about.

BUT NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH LOBBYIST, OR CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION.

This is becoming boring. You see what you want to see in everything she says, even though she is clearly not even referencing it. She could have said how much loves cotton candy and you would have gone off on how sugar companies rely on the government to maintain high sugar prices.

"Look at you, you can't even be intellectually honest."

you've not given me much to read up on regarding aoc's statement... just skewed information. if you learn about the american system and how corrupt it is, aoc will begin to make sense.

"She despises employers, she resents people who she believes are beholden to "slave masters""

see my comment about "skewed information". employers are the people who get a lot of money in their position that requires inferior skill to the employee. meanwhile, said employee has to live paycheck to paycheck.

"BUT NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH LOBBYIST, OR CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION"

like i said, you didn't give me much to read up on... just skewed information. i inferred what i could.

"This is becoming boring."

somebody boutta hit the ejection seat because he can't debate for a dime i can sense it.

"You see what you want to see in everything she says, even though she is clearly not even referencing it."

because she's said stuff about congressional corruption time and time before, and now the pandemic has happened, she can push people who are suffering to fight it.

"She could have said how much loves cotton candy and you would have gone off on how sugar companies rely on the government to maintain high sugar prices."

... that sounds like i'm disagreeing with her. this tangent makes no sense because i mostly agree with her statements here.

"what type of business did you run?" What difference does it make? You have never run one. Whether I ran a financial services company or a widget manufactuing company is not relevant. What is relevant is that I know what I am talking about, where as you are simply postulating upon a topic of which you are nothing more than a spectator with a bullhorn.

"when facebook started, zuckerberg didn't have a lot of competition. he does now, but back then there were very few social networks that were as advanced and appealing as facebook would be. not to mention that facebook isn't as threatening to the establishment as a passenger railroad company."

Wow...another rabbit hole...down and down you go, down the rabbit hole. This is just incoherent illogical ramblings that have nothing do with your entrepreneurial impotence. You are simply trying to explain away the success of somebody who started a business in a dorm room to rise to one of the wealthiest people in the world because "myspace sucked".

"because you tried to wimp out by exploiting the thread-end feature"

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't control the "thread end feature".

"What difference does it make? You have never run one. Whether I ran a financial services company or a widget manufactuing company is not relevant."

"Wow...another rabbit hole...down and down you go, down the rabbit hole. This is just incoherent illogical ramblings that have nothing do with your entrepreneurial impotence."

not all businesses are the run the same. i'd like to know what type of business you're running, if you're still running said business, and/or that business is still running. i still plan on being an entrepreneur, but my ambitions are very high-up because of what i propose, so i don't know if your businesses are/were as ambitious as mine.

"You are simply trying to explain away the success of somebody who started a business in a dorm room to rise to one of the wealthiest people in the world because "myspace sucked"."

it's not wrong to admire zuckerberg. still, not all businesses are the same, and running a social media site isn't as difficult as being a building contractor like donald trump.

"if you learn about the american system and how corrupt it is, aoc will begin to make sense."

Translation = If you go down my rabbit hole...

"because she's said stuff about congressional corruption time and time before, and now the pandemic has happened, she can push people who are suffering to fight it."

Translation = she said something previously, so she must be talking about it here. Because people are incapable of holding distinct conversations with completely separate premises.

Bhahahhaha

"Translation = If you go down my rabbit hole.."

eyyy an excuse for being a sheeple.

"Translation = she said something previously, so she must be talking about it here. Because people are incapable of holding distinct conversations with completely separate premises."

is consistency not a factor here? is she not allowed to make statements with what she believes just because she said something that didn't include those exact words? gotta love the use of the word "must" in your """"""translation"""""" as if you're trying to excuse your intellectual ineptitude.

complains of "skewed information" then states this "employers are the people who get a lot of money in their position that requires inferior skill to the employee. meanwhile, said employee has to live paycheck to paycheck."

BHAHAHAHAHHA.

Hmmm, well who takes more risk, the employer or the employee? Who's name is on the commercial lease for their office space? The employer or the employee? Who's name is on the bank loans? Who is responsible for the payroll? Who put their investment on the line to create the business.

Its clear, you have never started a business, employed people, and been responsbile. Perhaps its not such an issue with "corruption" as it is "a relationship between risk and reward".

As I said, countless times, this is sad. You 're a muppet.

"Who's name is on the commercial lease for their office space? The employer or the employee? Who's name is on the bank loans? Who is responsible for the payroll? Who put their investment on the line to create the business."

who gets the biggest slice of that government subsidy pie?

"Its clear, you have never started a business, employed people, and been responsbile"

because if i started a business, a passenger railroad company in particular, i'd get shut down by paid politicians.

"who gets the biggest slice of that government subsidy pie?" - Non-sequitur....you didn't answer my questions...who takes more risk?

I ran, two businesses, employed nearly 50 people, and I am still waiting on my "slice of the subsidy pie".

"because if i started a business, a passenger railroad company in particular, i'd get shut down by paid politicians.

Well, thanks, you have established you are talking out of your ass as you have never tried to start a business in your life. Even worse, you blame your own inability to start a business because it would inevitably fail because of some corruption. If thats the case, why is there so many people who rise from poverty to wealth in America by starting a business? Mark Zuckerberg from his dorm room?

This has run its course. You're a sophist, not an intellectual.

"I ran, two businesses, employed nearly 50 people, and I am still waiting on my "slice of the subsidy pie"."

what type of business did you run?

"Well, thanks, you have established you are talking out of your ass as you have never tried to start a business in your life."

not yet, anyway. i still plan on it.

"Mark Zuckerberg from his dorm room?"

when facebook started, zuckerberg didn't have a lot of competition. he does now, but back then there were very few social networks that were as advanced and appealing as facebook would be. not to mention that facebook isn't as threatening to the establishment as a passenger railroad company.

"This has run its course"

because you tried to wimp out by exploiting the thread-end feature

Silly girl! The rules are. Tax cuts for the Rich. Economic insecurity on everyone else