A Living Wage, Please!

[Guest]

Shift? That would imply that there’s some gear action happening in that skull of yours, and I’m not convinced of that. : D

Your first post stated that you believed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s pay couldn’t keep her honest. And you posted a moronic tweet from a random nobody as some sort of point that even you cannot make work.

Congrats for doing your best to live up to your forum nic.

Not gear shift, but more like the type of shift you do when you explain how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez considers "dark money loopholes" as honest...and the avoidance of honest can only be achieved by giving her a pay raise.
So, yeah...shift.

Another comprehension fail for you.

Please point out where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls “dark money loopholes” honest, whatever you intend that to mean.

I’ll wait.

[_honorentheos]

I'm genuinely curious which bit is the line where you read honest into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's view of dark money loopholes.

ETA: canpakes posting the same thing at the same time suggests something, subbie. Seems like a popular request. I'm taking " conflated legal with honest" in the response pool.

[_honorentheos]

Apparently comprehension isn't a big thing amount conservatives. But please show me where taking bribes was mentioned by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and not assumed by the twit.

So what is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking about when she says a raise removes dark money?

To start with, you can go back and see she didn't say a raise removes dark money. She said failure to help Congressional wages keep up with reasonable compensation for the job makes it harder to close this set of loopholes. If you read at all, you'd know she has a history on that issue, including a bit of Congressional grand standing about how a would-be politician could be fully funded by special interests, pay off people who might know things that would prevent them from getting elected, write or influence legislation in favor of the interests that funded them, own stock in companies that benefit from their actions, and parachute out with lucrative consulting/lobbying salaries. All at the exp nse of the American people they were supposed to be representing.

But that's just it, isn't it? You don't think politicians are supposed to represent us AND be a functioning government body because you've been convinced government is the problem. So dismantling it is representing you. Given the choice between a good representative being compensated to represent you and starving the bastards out, you think the latter is the answer.

[_subgenius]

To start with, you can go back and see she didn't say a raise removes dark money. She said failure to help Congressional wages keep up with reasonable compensation for the job makes it harder to close this set of loopholes. If you read at all, you'd know she has a history on that issue, including a bit of Congressional grand standing about how a would-be politician could be fully funded by special interests, pay off people who might know things that would prevent them from getting elected, write or influence legislation in favor of the interests that funded them, own stock in companies that benefit from their actions, and parachute out with lucrative consulting/lobbying salaries. All at the exp nse of the American people they were supposed to be representing.

But that's just it, isn't it? You don't think politicians are supposed to represent us AND be a functioning government body because you've been convinced government is the problem. So dismantling it is representing you. Given the choice between a good representative being compensated to represent you and starving the bastards out, you think the latter is the answer.

huh?
She didn't say that congressional wages were unreasonable, she said that if CoL raise was not approved for her current salary then these loopholes would continue...as if these loopholes are inherently causing "bad". Again, are you supporting an assertion that her current wage is unreasonable?

[_honorentheos]

Huh? Are you continuing to suffer from the concussion from the hit to the head of the twit's twit?

You continue to avoid direct response to what she said, substituting the twits assumption of what she really meant. But perhaps you can quote directly rather than paraphrase per the twit?

[_subgenius]

Another comprehension fail for you.

Please point out where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls “dark money loopholes” honest, whatever you intend that to mean.

I’ll wait.

Does she say they are dishonest?
If they are dishonest, then that would be a crime... ergo, the OP.
if she intends that they are honest then why dissuade them with an unnecessary pay raise for a salary, benefits, and position that should easily be above "livable" for her.

how do you comprehend her position?
(spoiler alert: you may need the oft mentioned "balls" to respond honestly)

[_canpakes]

Another comprehension fail for you.

Please point out where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls “dark money loopholes” honest, whatever you intend that to mean.

I’ll wait.

Does she say they are dishonest?
If they are dishonest, then that would be a crime... ergo, the OP.
if she intends that they are honest then why dissuade them with an unnecessary pay raise for a salary, benefits, and position that should easily be above "livable" for her.

how do you comprehend her position?
(spoiler alert: you may need the oft mentioned "balls" to respond honestly)

Geez, you can’t get this rght, either.

Do you really believe that all dishonest things are a crime? Were that the case, you’d have been jailed several times already for some of your posts here alone.

[_subgenius]

Geez, you can’t get this rght, either.

Do you really believe that all dishonest things are a crime? Were that the case, you’d have been jailed several times already for some of your posts here alone.

Stick with the context.
It's a simple notion that only has 2 moving parts.
1. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that dark money loopholes are a crime? or that they are even dishonest?
2. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that her current salary is inadequate to avoid something that is neither dishonest nor a crime?

and as a bonus, is Honor correct by implying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez salary is an unlivable wage?

"ball" is in your court... I'll go get your coffee, since you're busy.

[_honorentheos]

Subbie, what effect do you believe said dark money loopholes have, if you agree they exist at all?

[_canpakes]

Geez, you can’t get this rght, either.

Do you really believe that all dishonest things are a crime? Were that the case, you’d have been jailed several times already for some of your posts here alone.

Stick with the context.
It's a simple notion that only has 2 moving parts.
1. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that dark money loopholes are a crime? or that they are even dishonest?
2. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that her current salary is inadequate to avoid something that is neither dishonest nor a crime?

and as a bonus, is Honor correct by implying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez salary is an unlivable wage?

"ball" is in your court... I'll go get your coffee, since you're busy.

I have no idea why you want to keep demonstrating such difficulties with comprehension, but the answer to your choice of either option 1 or option 2 is: neither.

If you actually want to discuss context, you’d note that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sentiment is straightforward: lawmakers continually denied a CoL wage adjustment could legally rely increasingly on dark money support, which is not necessarily illegal (I guess that I have to mention that a few times, for you) but which may place specific lobbyist interests above those of a lawmaker’s larger constituency.

You’ve repeatedly attempted to misinterpret this simple sentiment as something akin to lawlessness, because you’ve hitched your wagon to a tweeted response by a dumbarse. It’s certainly your choice to remain hitched, I suppose. If so, feel free to sketch out how you get from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s statement to either of your choices above.

As for Honor’s question - I can’t speak for him, but I’d suppose he’d notice that you’re making the same logic fail with that question as the others above.

Ball is back to you. Now you have one, at least.