US "The Squad" Megathread - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib Derangement Syndrome

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I honestly only know about American politics from what I read on the Internet but since we all love shitting on leftists I figured we'd get a kick out of this. Also it's trending on Twitter so you know it's important.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...irect=on&noredirect=on&utm_term=.960552c9ba53

NEW YORK — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old political novice running on a low budget and an unabashedly liberal platform, upset longtime U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley on Tuesday in the Democratic congressional primary in New York.

The surprise victory by the community organizer in a district that includes parts of the Bronx and Queens came after an energetic, grassroots campaign that mustered more than enough support in a low-turnout race that many had expected to be an easy win for Crowley, a member of the Democratic House leadership.

“The community is ready for a movement of economic and social justice. That is what we tried to deliver,” said Ocasio-Cortez, who has never held elected office and whose candidacy attracted only modest media attention.

She told The Associated Press after her victory that she didn’t have enough money to do polling in the race, but felt in her gut that her message had a chance to connect.

“I live in this community. I organized in this community. I felt the absence of the incumbent. I knew he didn’t have a strong presence,” she said.

Crowley has been in Congress since 1999 and hadn’t faced an opponent in a primary election since 2004, when Ocasio-Cortez was just a teenager. He was considered a candidate to become the next House speaker if Democrats win the majority.

“It’s not about me,” Crowley, 56, told his supporters at a campaign party following his loss. “It’s about America. I want nothing but the best for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I want her to be victorious.”

He later played guitar with a band at the election night gathering, and dedicated the first song, Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run,” to Ocasio-Cortez.

Crowley represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, where he is also the leader of the Queens Democratic party.

Ocasio-Cortez was outspent by an 18-1 margin during her race but won the endorsement of some influential groups on the party’s far left, including MoveOn, as well as the actress Cynthia Nixon, who is running for governor. She defeated Crowley by 15 percentage points.

Born in the Bronx to a mother from Puerto Rico and a father who died in 2008, Ocasio-Cortez said she decided to challenge Crowley to push a more progressive stance on economic and other issues.

She attended Boston University, where she earned degrees in economics and international relations, and also spent time working in the office of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy.

After graduating, she returned to the Bronx where she became a community organizer. In the 2016 presidential campaign she worked for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Among her issues is expanding the Medicare program to people of all ages and abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. She recently went to Tornillo, Texas, to protest against policies that have separated parents from their children at the southern U.S. border.

Ocasio-Cortez gained some internet attention for a campaign video called “The Courage to Change,” a two-minute spot for which she wrote the script and featured footage from her own home.

Crowley is chair of the House Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in Democratic leadership in that chamber of Congress.

His loss drew the attention of President Donald Trump.

“Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!” he tweeted.

The Republican candidate for the office, Anthony Pappas, is running unopposed and had no primary. Pappas teaches economics at St. John’s University.

She was a Bernie campaigner, is supported by BLM, and wants to abolish Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Also this was in a solid-blue Congressional District so you know she's a shoo-in for next Congress.

But hey, we did get to see Trump laugh at Crowley on Twitter.
 
Pi is exactly 3 because it would be neater if it were and nobody would have to remember some boring, unending number which was probably made up by wypipo to make peoples of color feel bad about themselves anyway.
Has anybody checked to see if AOC has webbed hands and feet? It might explain her inability to understand math? She can't count on her fingers.

Image related:
707870
 
HAhahahah, someone mentioned Pi and now I get to sperg at you.

So pi represents the ratio between the circumference and the radius of a circle. 2 X pi X radius = circumference

This means a circle cannot have a rational circumference and radius. At least one must be irrational (Irrational numbers are the ones that never end, like pi, and cannot be represented as a fraction)

So, what that means is, since we don't know the actual value of pi (being irrational, it never ends), we actually don't even know how to really calculate it. Because to figure out Pi, you need to divide circumference by radius. But you can't possibly know both circumference and radius, because at least one of them is also irrational!

So how the fuck can they calculate pi? You need pi to make a circle, and you need a circle to figure out pi.
 
Welcome to Canada. The best of the best exiting post secondary head to the US, and have for generations. We call it "the Brain Drain". The second rung all get Gov't jobs since it pays better than the private sector and you get a pension. The rest basically go underemployed or go on welfare.
No, the rest goes to the Brave New Canadians fleeing from another Republican presidency... who all happen to go on welfare.

I'm just pulling your leg though. I'm Canadian born but spent most of my developing years and all of my adult years in the States. But I guess I prove your point.
 
d7b0bfd71987eaff27adf6b69dd2def3.png


You know you're in bad shape when even Cruz is dunking on you.
It got better:
Start at 1:24

So that you can watch him say this, with visual aids:

For Mr. President, I rise today to consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves. This is of course a picture of former President Ronald Reagan, naturally firing a machine gun while riding on the back of a dinosaur. You'll notice a couple of important features here: first of all, the rocket launcher strapped to President Reagan's back, and then the stirring, unmistakeable patriotism of the velociraptor holding up a tattered American flag, a symbol of all it means to be an American.

You know, critics might quibble with this depiction of the climactic battle of the Cold War, because while awesome, in real life there was no climactic battle. There was no battle with or without velociraptors. The Cold War, as we all know, was won without firing a shot.

But that quibble actually serves our purposes here today, Mr. President, because this image has as much to do with overcoming communism in the 20th century as the Green New Deal has to do with overcoming climate change in the 21st. The aspirations of the proposal have been called radical; they’ve been called extreme, but mostly they’re ridiculous. There isn’t a single serious idea here: not one.

To illustrate, let me highlight two of the most prominent goals produced by the plan’s authors. Goal number one: the Green New Deal calls essentially for the elimination of airplanes. Now this might seem merely ambitious to politicians who represent densely-populated northeastern United States. But how’s it supposed to work for our fellow citizens who don’t live somewhere between Washington D.C. and Boston? In a future without air travel, how are we supposed to get around the vast expanses of say, Alaska during the winter?

Well, I’ll tell you how: Tauntauns, Mr. President, is a beloved species of repti-mammals native to the ice planet of Hoth. Now, well, perhaps not as efficient as airplanes or as snowmobiles, these hairy bipedaled species of space lizards offer their own unique benefits. Not only are tauntauns carbon-neutral, but according to a report a long time ago and issued far, far away, they may even be fully recycleable and usable for their warmth, especially on a cold night.
What about Hawaii, isolated, two-thousand miles out in the Pacific Ocean. Under the Green New Deal’s effective airplane prohibition, how are people there supposed to get to and from the mainland? How are they supposed to maintain that significant portion of their economy based on tourism? At that distance, swimming would, of course, be out of the question, and jet skis are notorious gas guzzlers.

No: all residents of Hawaii would be left with is this: This is a picture of Aquaman, a superhero from the sea-kingdom of Atlantis, and notable here, a founding member of super friends. I draw your attention, Mr. President, to the 20-foot impressive seahorse he’s riding. Under the Green New Deal, this is probably Hawaii’s best bet.

Now, I’m the first to admit that a massive fleet of giant, highly-trained sea horses would be cool. It would be really, really awesome. We have to consider a few things. We have no idea about scalability or domestic capacity in this sector. The last thing we want is to ban all airplanes and only then find out that China or Russia may have already established strategic hippocampus programs designed to cut the United States out of the global market. Mr. President: we must not allow and cannot tolerate a giant seahorse gap.
 
HAhahahah, someone mentioned Pi and now I get to sperg at you.

So pi represents the ratio between the circumference and the radius of a circle. 2 X pi X radius = circumference

This means a circle cannot have a rational circumference and radius. At least one must be irrational (Irrational numbers are the ones that never end, like pi, and cannot be represented as a fraction)

So, what that means is, since we don't know the actual value of pi (being irrational, it never ends), we actually don't even know how to really calculate it. Because to figure out Pi, you need to divide circumference by radius. But you can't possibly know both circumference and radius, because at least one of them is also irrational!

So how the fuck can they calculate pi? You need pi to make a circle, and you need a circle to figure out pi.

I think it was a joke about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

There's also something about changing Pi because measurements of some round thing(s) in the bible didn't align with it, circumference and diameter didn't match even though it was specified in cubits! But I might be mistaken about that.
 
I think it was a joke about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

There's also something about changing Pi because measurements of some round thing(s) in the bible didn't align with it, circumference and diameter didn't match even though it was specified in cubits! But I might be mistaken about that.
Hahah, that's pretty funny. Yeah, the bible gives dimensions of a "circular structure" which is x cubits in diameter, and 3x cubits in circumference. If we take it to truly be a circle, this means the bible posits the value of pi to be exactly 3.

EDIT:
I feel like there's a missing step there. Why does pi representing (that) mean it has to be irrational?

Well, if pi were not irrational, as in, if it's possible for a circle to have both circumference and diameter be rational numbers, then it wouldn't be. But, it's not possible to create a circle where both the diameter and circumference are rational numbers. If you make a circle where the diameter is 1 foot, then made a bunch of points equidistant from the center (to make a true circle you need infinite points, but since we can't measure infinite precision, we'll just make a bunch). If you do that, then take a wheel whose circumference is 1 foot, you'll see that the wheel will make one full rotation while going over the diameter of the circle. If you then run the wheel around all the points you made, you will see the wheel makes 3 full rotations, then a little more(about 0.141592653589... etc). You'll also notice if you try to measure the diameter of this 1 foot circumference wheel it's going to be an irrational number you'll end up just having to round eventually. (It would be precisely 1/pi, or 0.31830988618379067153776752674503... etc)

So the reason pi has to be irrational is because a rational number(except 0, that cheater) multiplied by an irrational number will always result in an irrational number. I mean, think about it, the numbers just keep going after the decimal point, so the result naturally will work the same way.

I don't know if I've explained any of this in a helpful way, so maybe a kiwi who is better at explaining math things will take this away from me and make it clearer.
 
Last edited:
I feel like there's a missing step there. Why does pi representing (that) mean it has to be irrational?
Because pi itself is irrational. It represents the proportion between the diameter @nd the circumference. To generate an irrational number in an equation on of thr terms, in this case, either the diameter or circumference must be irrational, since rational numbers only generate rational numbers when they are the only parts of an equation.
 
Hahah, that's pretty funny. Yeah, the bible gives dimensions of a "circular structure" which is x cubits in diameter, and 3x cubits in circumference. If we take it to truly be a circle, this means the bible posits the value of pi to be exactly 3.
I mean you try explaining irrational numbers to a bunch of ancient Jews. Even in high school math we round to a few numbers, 3.1415 or so, because there's only so precise you need to be.
 
I mean you try explaining irrational numbers to a bunch of ancient Jews. Even in high school math we round to a few numbers, 3.1415 or so, because there's only so precise you need to be.
Also they are using cubits, the length of a forearm, to measure. not the most precise unit of measuring.
 
Also they are using cubits, the length of a forearm, to measure. not the most precise unit of measuring.

Some of the more lopsided Egyptian pyramids are hypothesized to be that way because of differences between the length of a cubit among the various architects overseeing the construction.
 
Hahah, that's funny, I always wondered exactly how long a cubit was supposed to be. Yeah, no good having ol' stubby arms doing the cubitting on one side, and lanky jones on the other.

And yes, Ol' Stubby Arms and Lanky Jones are well documented pyramid architects. Don't check that claim.
 
I mean you try explaining irrational numbers to a bunch of ancient Jews. Even in high school math we round to a few numbers, 3.1415 or so, because there's only so precise you need to be.
Considering that the circumference of that circular thing was not strictly defined but only approximated by a 30-sided regular polygon with sides 1 cubit in length, losing a cubit and a half in there was perfectly understandable.

I'm such a fuckin' dork I just did the math and you lose 0.047 cubits from the true arc length with each side of a 10-cubit diameter 30-gon.

This information will surely put this biblical dilemma to bed.
 
You know, if I were a Republican who gave a shit about the environment and also wanted to rack up a bunch of political points, I'd create a bill called the "Better than AOC's 'Green New Deal' Act" and fill it with sensible things like subsidies for nuclear energy and nuclear research, tariffs on goods from high polluting countries like China, and a carbon tax and dividend scheme (which is the most broadly supported climate change policy among economists and scientists), then watch the Dems shriek over it and be forced to vote No and betray their base or vote Yes and take a dump on AOC.
 
Considering that the circumference of that circular thing was not strictly defined but only approximated by a 30-sided regular polygon with sides 1 cubit in length, losing a cubit and a half in there was perfectly understandable.

I'm such a fuckin' dork I just did the math and you lose 0.047 cubits from the true arc length with each side of a 10-cubit diameter 30-gon.

This information will surely put this biblical dilemma to bed.
Ah, so if you reduce a circle from infinite points equidistant from center to 30 points equidistant from center you get a thing that has 3x the "circumference (not really circumference since it's not really a circle)" of its diameter.

Well there you go. Circles from now on will have a maximum of 30 points, and pi is now rational. Math just got a lot easier guys.
 
Ah, so if you reduce a circle from infinite points equidistant from center to 30 points equidistant from center you get a thing that has 3x the "circumference (not really circumference since it's not really a circle)" of its diameter.

Well there you go. Circles from now on will have a maximum of 30 points, and pi is now rational. Math just got a lot easier guys.
No, stupid. The 30-sided polygon is not the same as a circle.

This derail should probably end now.
 
Back
Top Bottom