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.
 
Wikipedia used to say she minored in econ, but now it says she double majored in econ and international relations. I’d like to see evidence either way. International relations is a bullshit degree, so, if that’s what she actually majored in, it makes sense she was working as a bartender straight out of college, but I’m skeptical she couldn’t find a white collar job with an econ degree.

Yeah, I wish there were a way to know for sure because I think she'd have no problem lying or exaggerating about her degree(s). And yes, someone with an econ degree from a reputable school should have been able to find a consulting gig or analyst-in-training work at the very least.

The speculation about her education in this article is interesting nonetheless and what I assumed on my own based on AOC's idiocy and grandstanding, but I can't find any confirmation from BU, especially as they want to prop her up as a wunderkind and visionary:

The Dual Degree Is Improbable But Not Impossible

Edit: Here's confirmation that she did in fact major in both IR and econ:
AOC-1.jpg


To be honest I'm disgusted and gobsmacked, but at least now I can shut up about it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I wish there were a way to know for sure because I think she'd have no problem lying or exaggerating about her degree(s). And yes, someone with an econ degree from a reputable school should have been able to find a consulting gig or analyst-in-training work at the very least.

The speculation about her education in this article is interesting nonetheless and what I assumed on my own based on AOC's idiocy and grandstanding, but I can't find any confirmation from BU, especially as they want to prop her up as a wunderkind and visionary:

The Dual Degree Is Improbable But Not Impossible

Edit: Here's confirmation that she did in fact major in both IR and econ:
AOC-1.jpg


To be honest I'm disgusted and gobsmacked, but at least now I can shut up about it.
She really is a level 3 super genius.
 
Remember, she allegedly studied economics.

I still remember one of the first interviews she did when she was more of a curiosity than the (in)famous individual she has become now where she claimed that the unemployment rate was so low because everybody had two jobs. I quickly realized that not only was her economics degree not worth the paper is was printed on, but that she was clearly lacking in critical reasoning ability as you don't need to study economics to realize that doesn't make one god damn bit of sense.

But as much as I think she's a complete idiot, the fact that she was elected just goes to prove that in America anyone can make it. You don't need to be intelligent, wealthy, or even terribly likable. We've even elected an Irishman president before. What a country.
 
Yeah, I wish there were a way to know for sure because I think she'd have no problem lying or exaggerating about her degree(s). And yes, someone with an econ degree from a reputable school should have been able to find a consulting gig or analyst-in-training work at the very least.

The speculation about her education in this article is interesting nonetheless and what I assumed on my own based on AOC's idiocy and grandstanding, but I can't find any confirmation from BU, especially as they want to prop her up as a wunderkind and visionary:

The Dual Degree Is Improbable But Not Impossible

Edit: Here's confirmation that she did in fact major in both IR and econ:
AOC-1.jpg


To be honest I'm disgusted and gobsmacked, but at least now I can shut up about it.

I double majored and my degree reads this way as well. I was close to a dual major and was told that that would be two Bachelor of Arts, each with one major.
 
Black Irish,
Alternate title to Black Klansman

"It's important to note that people shouldn't be in a situation where they depend on a stranger's enormous act of charity for this kind of liberation to begin with (aka college should be affordable), but it is an incredible act of community investment in this system as it is
aka college should be affordable
giphy (55).gif
slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif

giphy (53).gif
giphy (54).gif
giphy (52).gif
tenor (22).gif
2f0.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aka college should be affordable

It was much more affordable when everyone and his dog wasn't forced into that system. When you make something mandatory, the price goes up. Just basic economics.

What if--and this is just a wild, crazy idea--what if we had a system where we taught young people the skills necessary to function in the adult world? Hey, instead of making kids pay to learn how to read, write, and do math, what if we taught them in a publicly-available system--and while we're at it, let's also add a few classes in science, civics, and maybe some available classes in trades? That way, kids who aren't interested in blowing their future salaries just to be able to get by, would be free at a younger age to start their lives, or take that option to go more in-depth on their fields of talent and interest!

It'd be like an affordable system that benefits even poor kids or something!

...I don't know why, but it's like I wasn't even making that up as I went, but describing something I vaguely remember. The details are just all coming back to me like magic. Weird, huh?
 
It was much more affordable when everyone and his dog wasn't forced into that system. When you make something mandatory, the price goes up. Just basic economics.

What if--and this is just a wild, crazy idea--what if we had a system where we taught young people the skills necessary to function in the adult world? Hey, instead of making kids pay to learn how to read, write, and do math, what if we taught them in a publicly-available system--and while we're at it, let's also add a few classes in science, civics, and maybe some available classes in trades? That way, kids who aren't interested in blowing their future salaries just to be able to get by, would be free at a younger age to start their lives, or take that option to go more in-depth on their fields of talent and interest!

It'd be like an affordable system that benefits even poor kids or something!

...I don't know why, but it's like I wasn't even making that up as I went, but describing something I vaguely remember. The details are just all coming back to me like magic. Weird, huh?

we used to have that but we replaced schools with buildings designed like prisons filled with tests designed by idiots
 
we used to have that but we replaced schools with buildings designed like prisons filled with tests designed by idiots

I think believing that we used to have that is to a certain extent nostalgia for a time that doesn't exist, we just sort of assume it did in some murky place before we went there. The American public school system was about indoctrination and curbing individuality from the start... its founders are extremely frank about this in letters to each other, it was one of their goals to instill a collectivist identity and loyalty to authority into the young. It's simply that over time the schools have shifted to teaching one particular strain of adherence to authority rather than a general "obey the government".
 
I think believing that we used to have that is to a certain extent nostalgia for a time that doesn't exist, we just sort of assume it did in some murky place before we went there. The American public school system was about indoctrination and curbing individuality from the start... its founders are extremely frank about this in letters to each other, it was one of their goals to instill a collectivist identity and loyalty to authority into the young. It's simply that over time the schools have shifted to teaching one particular strain of adherence to authority rather than a general "obey the government".

This is truth. I wish more people understood this.

My point, to clarify, was to throw their pro-public school propaganda back in their face. They sold us on the system by telling us they'd educate kids and prepare them for success; now they've shuffled that off to the paid adult-education system.

So instead, they require "core" classes like basic writing, reading comprehension, and arithmetic/low-level mathematics in college, and make young people sign over their future finances for the education they were promised for free over the last twelve years. And their graduates still can't consistently spell "definitely", use "imply" and "infer" correctly, or make change from $20.

Half the objective was to make unquestioning drones; the other half was eventually to get us to indenture ourselves voluntarily to the corporate/government elites. Why else would they float the idea of forgiving student loans in exchange for working a government job for a set number of years? Funny thing is, that's actual fascism.

Democrats are the kings of the long con.
 
I think believing that we used to have that is to a certain extent nostalgia for a time that doesn't exist, we just sort of assume it did in some murky place before we went there. The American public school system was about indoctrination and curbing individuality from the start... its founders are extremely frank about this in letters to each other, it was one of their goals to instill a collectivist identity and loyalty to authority into the young. It's simply that over time the schools have shifted to teaching one particular strain of adherence to authority rather than a general "obey the government".
But that was the foundation of virtually every school system.
 
This is truth. I wish more people understood this.

My point, to clarify, was to throw their pro-public school propaganda back in their face. They sold us on the system by telling us they'd educate kids and prepare them for success; now they've shuffled that off to the paid adult-education system.

So instead, they require "core" classes like basic writing, reading comprehension, and arithmetic/low-level mathematics in college, and make young people sign over their future finances for the education they were promised for free over the last twelve years. And their graduates still can't consistently spell "definitely", use "imply" and "infer" correctly, or make change from $20.

Half the objective was to make unquestioning drones; the other half was eventually to get us to indenture ourselves voluntarily to the corporate/government elites. Why else would they float the idea of forgiving student loans in exchange for working a government job for a set number of years? Funny thing is, that's actual fascism.

Democrats are the kings of the long con.
"Make change from $20."
Forgive my Boomerness but there are actually people in college who can't make change?
Oh who am I kidding I should remember who this thread is about.
 
It was much more affordable when everyone and his dog wasn't forced into that system. When you make something mandatory, the price goes up. Just basic economics.

What if--and this is just a wild, crazy idea--what if we had a system where we taught young people the skills necessary to function in the adult world? Hey, instead of making kids pay to learn how to read, write, and do math, what if we taught them in a publicly-available system--and while we're at it, let's also add a few classes in science, civics, and maybe some available classes in trades? That way, kids who aren't interested in blowing their future salaries just to be able to get by, would be free at a younger age to start their lives, or take that option to go more in-depth on their fields of talent and interest!

It'd be like an affordable system that benefits even poor kids or something!

...I don't know why, but it's like I wasn't even making that up as I went, but describing something I vaguely remember. The details are just all coming back to me like magic. Weird, huh?

Like all liberals, AOC wants the sun and the moon but doesn't want to have to pay for it. We want a top-tier education system, but we don't want to pay more in property taxes. We want our children to get comfortable white-collar sinecures, but we don't want to have to take away from our personal time to give them the skills they need. The very wealthy can simply buy their way into the best schools, while the rest of us have to pay a massive surcharge to enter the work force.
 
PoC doesn't care about global warming because of cauliflower. She's killing it lately!

“But when you really think about it -- when someone says that it’s ‘too hard’ to do a green space that grows Yucca instead of, I don’t know, cauliflower or something -- what you’re doing is you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“That is why a lot of communities of color get resistant to certain environmentalist movements because they come with the colonial lens on them.”
 
PoC doesn't care about global warming because of cauliflower. She's killing it lately!


I'm not sure if I'd call it a colonial practice, but I do see where she's coming from. It's best to encourage communal gardens which grow food that the community is familiar with and eats, instead of promoting foods that they don't much care for.

That being said, I'm not sure how large a problem that is? I can't judge her either way, because I am simply not familiar enough with communal gardens and their practices, but I don't think people would be discouraged from growing more unique/diverse plant species in communal gardens, so long as it was possible and they didn't hurt other plants in the process.

EDIT: Okay, so I did a quick and lazy check on some communal garden laws, and it seems more like legal concerns are more centered around land usage and the sale of produce from communal gardens, so... problem solved?
 
Last edited:
"Colonialism" is such a tasty nu-socjus-academia term. It's a little more rare but it's got some spicy roots.
 
I'm not sure if I'd call it a colonial practice, but I do see where she's coming from. It's best to encourage communal gardens which grow food that the community is familiar with and eats, instead of promoting foods that they don't much care for.

That being said, I'm not sure how large a problem that is? I can't judge her either way, because I am simply not familiar enough with communal gardens and their practices, but I don't think people would be discouraged from growing more unique/diverse plant species in communal gardens, so long as it was possible and they didn't hurt other plants in the process.
I highly doubt anybody cares what you grow in a community garden, the main problem is that said community disappears right after it's started, and it mostly becomes a weed choked mass except where the few determined gardeners take care of it, followed by the community reappearing when it's time to harvest.

Basically most community gardens end up being live action remakes of "The Little Red Hen".
 
I highly doubt anybody cares what you grow in a community garden, the main problem is that said community disappears right after it's started, and it mostly becomes a weed choked mass except where the few determined gardeners take care of it, followed by the community reappearing when it's time to harvest.

Basically most community gardens end up being live action remakes of "The Little Red Hen".

So the only real winner, in the end, is the person growing weed? Well, at least that's ideologically consistent.
 
Back
Top Bottom