Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Funeral costs for the uninsured are easy to calculate. Cremation costs for the indigent are typically $800 x 40,000,000 uninsured = $32 billion. This must be offset by a net savings of food stamp allotments ($60 billion) the first year (I used only the 26 million figure currently on foodstamps, assuming 14 million uninsured do not get food stamps). Technically, the figure would be further offset by savings from the $684 Social Security disability monthly minimum benefit, and $232 Supplemental Security Income, but I left those figures out. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:30, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Per annum, yes, the figure for funeral costs for the uninsured is much lower, cause not all 40,000,000 of the uninsured die in the same year (probably about 2 million do annually, or about 5% of $32 billion). My point is funeral costs are recouped in four months time with the termination of foodstamps, and it's a net gain every month thereafter for the U.S. Treasury plus a gain if the deceased were a Social Security recipient. Only two factors would reverse this trend for the U.S. Treasury: (1) a rising natural birth rate, and/or (2) immigration. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:40, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Updating

In all likelihood Ocasio-Cortez will be "inaugurated" in January and will start signing bills right away. I'm trying to shape this article as someone who has outlived her 15 minutes of fame and a serious spokesman for Democratic Socialism, and not just tidbits from the 2018 election cause as time goes on it gets harder to keep up with the lunstic statements. Ocasio-Cortez will be a gift that keeps on giving, and it's not even Christmas morning yet. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:43, 8 October 2018 (EDT)

Did you pick an unflattering picture of her on purpose?

I don't like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez any more than the rest of you, but I have to ask, are you deliberately using a picture of her with such a stupid looking expression on her face on purpose? Shobson20 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2019 (EST)

Unflattering? She's a good looking gal. I can't imagine her taking an unflattering picture. (But as far as chicanas go, I'd pick a date with Xocital Torres-Small first. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:47, 3 January 2019 (EST)
How do you not see the silliness of her eyes bugging out like that and the dopey thing she's doing with her mouth? Shobson20 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (EST)
Look, the term "wide-eyed liberal" was around long before she was born. She's a parody of herself. CP isn't the only one using this photo, I see it everywhere. In fact, its probably the best, most flattering picture of her, cause you can't find one without those bug eyes. At least one where she's still recognizable. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:40, 3 January 2019 (EST)
[1] Here's a much more normal picture of her. Shobson20 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2019 (EST)
Some of them don't do her justice - they make her look surprisingly normal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:44, 3 January 2019 (EST)
If we're going to use Google images, should we take CNN's upload on the top right? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:48, 3 January 2019 (EST)

To be fair, the picture in this article isn't the silliest picture of her -- I think this is. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2019 (EST)

Actually, I don't think the picture you cited above is the silliest. Which, being from Breitbart, sort of surprises me. It simply shows her in a rather animated speaking pose, of the sort that public officials find them selves in frequently. The "eyes bugging out" picture on the existing article is the silliest one I know of. In any case, "normal" pictures, of the sort that one might expect in a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, aren't hard to find. Like the official portrait here SamHB (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Personally, I think she's very pretty and attractive. None of these pictures catch her at an awkward moment. The "nerdy" look in the Briebart article is just one more aspect of her personality. Like all women, she's very conscious of her physical appearance (she doesn't much seem to care what imptession her words make). The picture on this page shows her naivete and innocence, which is exactly what she wanted to project. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:12, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Oh, and the official portrait ages her ten years. I'm sure she's thrilled. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:18, 4 January 2019 (EST)

We've seen this scenario a thousand times - a young, attractive leader and recruiter for Marxism who in less than twenty years will speak openly how she had no idea how cruel the system she advocated for really was in practice.

It is obvious now, reading some of her tweets and other written proposals, press people and permanent congressional staff are writing some materials attributed to her. She's being used as a poster child for recruitment. Sooner or later, if she has any character at all, she'll want to become her own person, or drowned in the cesspit of the DC swanp like Maxine Waters. In many ways, Ocasio-Cortez is much like Trump in her ability to connect with voters. Trump can't be controlled, Ocasio-Cortez so far has been used, but her rebellious nature spells trouble for those using her. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:20, 5 January 2019 (EST)

With the world ending, live it up while you still can

That seems to be AOC's philosophy: "Gas-guzzling car rides expose AOC’s hypocrisy amid Green New Deal pledge." PeterKa (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2019 (EST)

AOC has replied to this article: "Ocasio-Cortez responds to carbon footprint exposé: I’m just ‘living in the world’." This is of course an excellent reason. But what about the rest of us? Can we use it too? For example, "I think global warming is a hoax because I'm living in the world." PeterKa (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2019 (EST)