A Living Wage, Please!

[_Gunnar]

If I thought subgenius was posting the nonsense he does because he was simply trolling, I would be annoyed. But I think he really believes he is making sense.

And that is sad.

I am not yet convinced that we can justifiably rule out the conclusion that he is simply trolling, but that is in itself rather sad.

[_Some Schmo]

If I thought subgenius was posting the nonsense he does because he was simply trolling, I would be annoyed. But I think he really believes he is making sense.

And that is sad.

I am not yet convinced that we can justifiably rule out the conclusion that he is simply trolling, but that is in itself rather sad.

Ignoring him will save you the mental energy you're both wasting considering this question. He's not worth the consideration.

I'm sure you have better things to worry about than whether or not this moron is arguing in good faith (hint: who cares, given the nonsense he writes?)

When you step in crap, do you care whether someone left it there by accident or not?

[_canpakes]

I'm sure you have better things to worry about than whether or not this moron is arguing in good faith ...

He’s not.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm sure you have better things to worry about than whether or not this moron is arguing in good faith ...

He’s not.

Agreed. Chap and Gunnar are smart guys. I'm sure they're aware of what subs is doing, even if both of them are nice enough to give even the least deserving the benefit of the doubt.

[_subgenius]

"Dark money loopholes" aren't crimes.

So, you support Dark Money Loopholes?....as long as they are exploited by Democrats, of course.
Ok, so let us assume no criminal activity is implicit with Dark Money Loopholes...then why the need to close these loopholes since they save taxpayers the expense of having to pay legislators even more?
I mean, how is "Dark Money Loopholes" a justification for a pay raise if there is nothing illegal about "Dark Money Loopholes"?

The word "loophole" should've been your tip-off. And she's not necessarily referring to herself.

Necessarily she is referring to herself...her tweet, her job, and her pay raise...that should have been your "tip-off".

She's stating that lower pay creates incentives for people with her job to monetize it more through the means available to do so.

"lower pay"? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does not reference lower pay...she is making an argument that the current pay rate is "not enough" for someone in her position...do you agree with her conclusion?

Because you can't read or tell the truth, this apparently becomes difficult for you to deal with. And so you help serve the role of moron that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's media team likes to imply all critics of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must be.

Not my fault you are a rube with the effervescent aroma of fresh liberal chocolate starfish across thy apex nasi.

[_subgenius]

...

Just want to confirm ... is this your answer?

Last chance to make corrections ...

Yeah, that is my answer....step in form the shadow and make your case for the legitimacy and legality of "dark money" (of course it has to be "dark").
And do not forget to serve up a heaping helping of how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's current salary is insufficient against the legal pressures of "dark money".


In other words, please explain to the simple fools like myself how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez justifies her receiving a pay raise based upon presence of legal campaign contributions.
(bonus: exactly what salary makes a legislator immune to the yet-to-be-defined "pressures" mentioned in the OP?)

[_honorentheos]

subbie likes his politicians bought and paid for by special interests with deep pockets and the ability to hide their actual identities to avoid accountability. Or, more realistically, he just likes to try and poke certain people in the eye regardless of the argument required to do so. The only thing that need remain consistent is loyalty to the cause.

[_subgenius]

...politicians bought and paid for by special interests with deep pockets and the ability to hide their actual identities to avoid accountability....

according to posters above, this is not an illegal circumstance but it can only be mitigated through excessive pay raises for elected representatives....because their current salary is insufficient to maintain legal, moral, or ethical performances of their oath of office.

[_canpakes]

...

Just want to confirm ... is this your answer?

Last chance to make corrections ...

Yeah, that is my answer....step in form the shadow and make your case for the legitimacy and legality of "dark money" (of course it has to be "dark").

Ah. A new distraction, probably considered necessary by yourself given that your previous rantings were just rambling word salads.

I don’t think that anyone has made the case ‘for’ dark money. Certainly Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t. Maybe you’d like to begin given that it’s your distraction.

And do not forget to serve up a heaping helping of how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's current salary is insufficient against the legal pressures of "dark money".

Ah. Another distraction. Maybe you should tell us who is making the claim?

In other words, please explain to the simple fools like myself how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez justifies her receiving a pay raise based upon presence of legal campaign contributions.

Another distraction. Not that this one merits more attention than the two above, especially given that you want folks to explain something to a ‘simple fool’ such as yourself. What’s the incentive in trying to disabuse you of your self-imposed label when that label already appears to be reasonably accurate?

(bonus: exactly what salary makes a legislator immune to the yet-to-be-defined "pressures" mentioned in the OP?)

I couldn’t speak to that, but I can get you the contact information for a few lobbyists who could ‘shoot the shiite’ on that one with you. I can tell you that it apparently takes no offer of cash or ‘dark money’ for certain partisan fools to post the sort of disingenuous junk that you have here.

Did you check out your local community college for those language classes, yet? : )

[_Some Schmo]

Another distraction. Not that this one merits more attention than the two above, especially given that you want folks to explain something to a ‘simple fool’ such as yourself. What’s the incentive in trying to disabuse you of your self-imposed label when that label already appears to be reasonably accurate?

Quote of the day.