Prosperity and abundance for the ultra-rich, in hopes that their Prosperity Gospel will trickle down on the rest of us?
Amazon blamed local politicians. It would be a stretch to include a Congressional Representative with no direct power over the deal. Her tweets must be Super Effective!
Abundance doesn’t exist. We live in a world of limited resources. Abundance is a myth that privilege allows people to believe in. Just sayin…
Not only was she not “instrumental” in this, it wasn’t even her district! Long Island City falls into the 12th Congressional district and is represented by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, not AOC.
Dud you’re absorbing misinformation that makes you useful to a certain group of wealthy people who want to maintain the status quo. Useful like, say, a tool…
Yeah. I just keep pointing out the obvious to these guys-- the US economy did better overall when unions were stronger and the top marginal tax rates were higher. Hardly anybody in Canada, Japan or Europe wants to give up their national health care, even if they sometimes complain about it (but then complaining is part of the human condition.)
For people like Thiel “freedom” means his own freedom, not anyone else’s. The freedom to make lots of money, give very little back to the state that provides the infrastructure and security that made it possible, and have more say in the political process than anyone with less money.
As long as she’s 35 on inauguration day, that’s all that matters, legally speaking.
Any moment now the people of Denmark are going to all be locked up in prison camps, thanks to their various social welfare programs.
Of course this pro-business website seems to think otherwise:
There are trade-offs, but always working towards higher economic growth isn’t some magical cure-all that feeds the poor and heals the sick. You can disagree, but I think having a population who feel secure and happy and who get to enjoy their lives is better than having people constantly in a life-or-death struggle to make ends meet, only to wind up old, sick and nearly destitute after working full-time their whole lives and not being able to save enough to retire.
I don’t know if you feel that this is an apolitical point of view, but it is the explicit talking point of one of America’s two major political parties since Reagan. Your post is unwitting volunteer work for Ted Cruz’s re-election campaign.
If politicians are doing nothing to making the lives of Americans better, vote for different politicians. Or, do what Ocasio-Cortez did: run for office yourself and turn yourself and starting shaping the narrative.
Emphatic agreement, there.
You know my thoughts on this.
No one ever became more competent by being paid more. All higher pay gets you is less laziness. If more money guaranteed more competence, Donald Trump would be a supergenius who has working good answers to every problem in the world, instead of the whiny, petulant, lazy, ignorant, stupid, short-sighted, cowardly, irresponsible, lying, sociopathic, psychopathic, self-entitled, greedy, selfish, immoral, hypocritical, lying, worthless overgrown spoiled brat heap of phony fraudulent criminal possibly traitorous garbage that he is.
[citation needed]
I am confused. So paying your staff is “just like communism and socialism?” I would have thought it was the opposite, like “paying your staff what they are worth.”
There are no legal age requirements for campaigning for POTUS.
Also, you have mistaken corporate feudalism for “prosperity”. I can tell you sincerely believe in Reaganomics, and at this point that’s just ignoring reality, so I won’t try to disabuse you of the illusion.
True, a dude (or dudette) abides. It’s nice to find some common ground. 
yeah, it’s a dumb phrase. it creates exactly the toxic environment of 10x superstars by undermining the value of actual labor and pretending all jobs are easy if you’re smart enough. it’s a crock.
my point, and the point i think of the person you originally replied to:
small differences in pay can be fine. rewarding seniority ( long term commitment to a job ) through pay rises can be fine.
the idea that some people should be making beaucoup bucks because they’re irreplaceable snowflakes especially when their co-workers aren’t making a living wage - yikes.
this is why, to me, it’s cool to see “socialism” making a comeback in the us.
if people are leas worried about the financials of healthcare, education, transportation, etc. – if we have more security because we’ve pooled our money together in the form of taxes, if we’ve reduced the importance of that big fat paycheck by making taxation progressive – then everyone will be able to focus more on what matters to them. ( and not just worrying about making ends meet, or wtf to do about retirement. )
So you’re an anarchist then?
Nope; I’ve checked extensively, and @Mindysan33 is right; as long as the president elect is 35 years old by Inauguration Day, that’s all that is needed to fulfill the age requirement.
The real trick is going to be making sure the country/world survives intact until 2024…
No, really, tell us how you feel. BTW - I agree completely.
Even if there were any Federal laws requiring any sort of age requirements for campaign registration, they’d be unconstitutional under Article Two, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution…
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
…and any State laws the Tenth Amendment as Federal election law is an enumerated power reserved for the United States and no particular State may infringe upon it…
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Even the current SCOTUS is not going to blatantly rule against the office requirements clause.
It does not surprise me in the least that flag-waving hypocrites who only pretend to care about the US Constitution are ignorant of what it says. But I am also absolutely certain that they’d fervently twist themselves into pretzels to deny it when the Constitution is inconvenient for their “team” while taking a diametrically opposite position when it serves their own agenda.
[Edited for clarity.]
May we live to see the dawn, my friend.
Higher pay means:
