Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit

[Terraceth]

1. She didn't choose the clothes.
2. She may have had no idea what their value was, and still have no idea what their value is.
3. It does not confirm the alleged value of them.
4. You're just a joke if you think wearing some clothes in a photoshoot is relevant to politics. It's beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's more a commentary on you than on her.

I'm going to have agree with Starlight on this. This whole thing seems irrelevant at best, flat-out false at worst.

[Starlight]

It only matters if you are Mrs. Trump.

Well she's done photoshoots without clothes. From the amount CP is complaining about these clothes, I wonder if he'd prefer the photoshoot lacked clothes like Mrs Trump's ones.

Also, she did deliberately wear that $20 jacket that time that said "I really don't care, do you?" while visiting child shelters in order to try and get some headlines.

[mossrose]

Well she's done photoshoots without clothes. From the amount CP is complaining about these clothes, I wonder if he'd prefer the photoshoot lacked clothes like Mrs Trump's ones.

That is totally uncalled for and will get you moderated if you continue.

[Cow Poke]

From the amount CP is complaining about these clothes...

Don't get your panties in a wad, Star -- I just think it's amusing.

[Starlight]

That is totally uncalled for and will get you moderated if you continue.

Threatening moderation just because your point was refuted with relevant points is just sad.

[Cow Poke]

Well she's done photoshoots without clothes. From the amount CP is complaining about these clothes, I wonder if he'd prefer the photoshoot lacked clothes like Mrs Trump's ones.

Also, she did deliberately wear that $20 jacket that time that said "I really don't care, do you?" while visiting child shelters in order to try and get some headlines.

Carpe, jump in here, quick!!!! You can shout WHATABOUTISM!!!!

[Starlight]

Carpe, jump in here, quick!!!! You can shout WHATABOUTISM!!!!

Yep, he can shout it at Mossrose for bringing up the comparison to Mrs Trump.

[mossrose]

Threatening moderation just because your point was refuted with relevant points is just sad.

You did in no way refute my point. However, making accusations of moral turpitude against any other member is an offense due moderation. You would know that if you would check the forum decorum that you agreed to when you signed up for.

[Tassman]

Carpe, jump in here, quick!!!! You can shout WHATABOUTISM!!!!

So cute! Practise "whataboutism" endlessly and then mock those who complain about it. But what else can you do when you have no substantive arguments.

[Cow Poke]

So cute! Practise "whataboutism" endlessly and then mock those who complain about it. But what else can you do when you have no substantive arguments.

It's just a dumb debate tactic to yell "whataboutism" to avoid actually talking about issues. It's like liberals yelling "racism!" in an attempt to shut up debate.

But, how bout this, Tassy ---- just repeat this over and over and over and over and over, and maybe it will become true! That's what you do when you have no substantive argument, and you do it a lot.

[Starlight]

However, making accusations of moral turpitude against any other member is an offense due moderation.

Oh, now I think I get what you're on about. I'd been wondering why you thought moderation was at all relevant to my comments or what site rule you thought I might be violating.

I hadn't even thought of that way of reading my comment. When I wrote it I was thinking about politics and whether CP thought a nude photoshoot like Mrs Trump's would have been politically better or worse for AOC than a $3,500 clothing photoshoot was. He'd been complaining at lot that her constituents couldn't afford to do the same, whereas obviously they could afford to do a nude photoshoot, but obviously a nude photoshoot would have other political ramifications (although it didn't for Mrs Trump). But I see it's possible to interpret my comment as implying CP might personally rather than politically be appreciative of nude photoshoots of women in general. I hadn't meant it or thought of it that way, but it's interesting to see how quickly you latch onto that sort of interpretation. Perhaps that says something about you?

I'm not familiar with the term "moral turpitude" and looking it up it appears to be an American term that seems to have a rather vague dictionary definition. But my understanding of the enforcement of that rule in general here is that what is disallowed is the specific claim that "person X is a particularly horrible person in general" without any supporting evidence being provided. Have the rules/interpretation changed so that suggesting that someone might like seeing women naked is now a violation of this rule?

[mossrose]

I hadn't meant it or thought of it that way, but it's interesting to see how quickly you latch onto that sort of interpretation. Perhaps that says something about you?

I don't believe for a minute that you didn't mean or think of it that way. And after spending so many years on this site dealing with lowlifes like you there is no other way for me to interpret what you posted.

[carpedm9587]

You HAVE taken a position - you just can't admit it.

So now you're joining the Sparko/MM mind-reading team...?

My position is exactly what I have said it is. Whether or not you believe it...

Absolute hooey! That's one of the goofiest claims you're making. The left doesn't need to "conspire" to ignore something that would be embarrassing to one of their heroes. All they have to do is just be themselves, and they'll think it's not a story.

I'll leave it to you to prattle on about this....

I really don't have anything else to say. When I see confirmation or refutation, I'll take a firmer position. Until then... judgment suspended. I don't know enough about clothes to take a position.

[Cow Poke]

I really don't have anything else to say. When I see confirmation or refutation, I'll take a firmer position. Until then... judgment suspended. I don't know enough about clothes to take a position.

Well, keep reading, cause Starlight bailed you out.

[carpedm9587]

OK, so looking at some leftist websites, it seems the defense of this comes down to....

A) A $3500 outfit is nothing like the republicans totally gutting the social security fund
2) Who says she bought this? Maybe somebody bought it for her
C) Maybe somebody loaned it to her for the photo shoot
D) Even if it's that expensive, no matter what she does, she's going to get slammed by the right
5) Why are Trump supporters jealous of the economic success of democratic socialism?
6) So? What do clothes have to do with her politics? Should she wear rough spun wool robes? Would you vote for her then?

I'm finding ZERO "this is phony - that's a $200 blazer from Macy's" or "fake news" or "there's no way that's a $3,500 outfit"....

All I can find are excuses for why it's perfectly OK for her to do a "I'm just a working girl hanging out with construction workers" photo shoot dressed "to the 9's" (whatever that means)

Even our extremist leftist posters on Tweb don't seem to dispute the truth of the claim - they just find ways to excuse it or to attack the messenger or make some idiotic statement about irony.

I do find this amusing.

Maybe a link or two...? Where are you finding this...?