Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit

[carpedm9587]

I'm sorry about that.

Forgiven....

First of all, it's not really "news", and it's just silly to think that the left would actually carry this story, to whatever degree it's true. It's not that there would be a need for a "vast left-wing conspiracy to bury this news" - that's just silly.

Frankly, if it is true, it is a story that would get eyeballs. Media outlets love eyeballs...so I would expect at least a FEW left-leaning sites to pick it up. On the other hand, I would also expect a few left-leaning sites to pick up a "debunking" story. The absence of either makes me suspicious.

I find no reason to doubt the truth of the story - most liberals here defend her right to "dress up". It should be no surprise that "the right" would want to make fun of this, and "the left" would ignore it as not important.

I am dubious. And Alex Jones as a source is not encouraging. Frankly, I'm a little surprised you would be pushing forward a story that sources to Alex Jones. I would expect that of MM, Rogue, or Sparko - but not you.

Then there's goofus posters who use it to claim some kind of bogus "irony". I think they probably don't know the meaning of that word.

But, like I said, I was bored.

You need a hobby....

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't mean something's not true - simply ignoring it doesn't require a "vast left wing conspiracy". You're overthinking this.

I didn't say it was not true. I said I'm suspicious. And Alex Jones as an ultimate source is not encouraging.

[Cow Poke]

I didn't say it was not true. I said I'm suspicious. And Alex Jones as an ultimate source is not encouraging.

Carpe - if Alex Jones (and I'm not a fan) was the ONLY person to tell you the theater was on fire (and it truly was) would you sit tight and say "Alex Jones as an ultimate source is not encouraging", or would you get off your butt and look for the exit?

Sheeeeesh. The fact that Alex Jones was the source on this (and that's what I found also) doesn't make it any less hypocritical. The left, however, is not going to pay any attention, because she's "their gal".

[Cow Poke]

Frankly, if it is true, it is a story that would get eyeballs.

I haven't seen anybody saying it's not true -- only her admiring fans who make excuses for her.

Media outlets love eyeballs...so I would expect at least a FEW left-leaning sites to pick it up.

I'm thinking you're really not in touch like you think you are with how divisive the country - and the media - is.

On the other hand, I would also expect a few left-leaning sites to pick up a "debunking" story. The absence of either makes me suspicious.

OR!!!!!! There's nothing to "debunk", because she was wearing really expensive clothes while masquerading as "common folk", so they opted to just ignore it. Why is that so difficult to believe?

I am dubious.

Yeah, you keep saying.

And Alex Jones as a source is not encouraging.

Yeah, you said that, too.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised you would be pushing forward a story that sources to Alex Jones. I would expect that of MM, Rogue, or Sparko - but not you.

You must be REALLY bored to spend this much time overthinking something so simple. I knew it would get reaction, so I tossed it out there --- and guess what --- it got YOU!

You need a hobby....

I have one - irritating the dickens out of liberals.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe - if Alex Jones (and I'm not a fan) was the ONLY person to tell you the theater was on fire (and it truly was) would you sit tight and say "Alex Jones as an ultimate source is not encouraging", or would you get off your butt and look for the exit?

So first, I am not a fan of the "genetic fallacy," which is why I have not said "it's not true." But if Alex Jones was the only one screaming "fire" in a theater, I'd probably look for smoke before I went anywhere. The man is a notorious liar - second only to Trump himself.

Sheeeeesh. The fact that Alex Jones was the source on this (and that's what I found also) doesn't make it any less hypocritical. The left, however, is not going to pay any attention, because she's "their gal".

It is "less hypocritical" if it is simply not true. So far, I can find nothing to confirm it IS true. And, as I said, I am not a sufficient expert on clothing to make that judgment. I have a few friends that I think are, and I've forwarded them the links and asked them to take a look. Until I have confirmation...I'm going to reserve judgment. I recommend we ALL do.

[Cow Poke]

So first, I am not a fan of the "genetic fallacy," which is why I have not said "it's not true." But if Alex Jones was the only one screaming "fire" in a theater, I'd probably look for smoke before I went anywhere. The man is a notorious liar - second only to Trump himself.

And, seeing at least some evidence of smoke, you wouldn't sit back down and say, "well, it's Alex Jones, so I'll just ignore it".

It is "less hypocritical" if it is simply not true.

And thus far, nobody has said it's not true. There are pictures, but I'm not a fashion expert by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that if it were not true, somebody would expose the lie.

So far, I can find nothing to confirm it IS true.

Do the pictures look fake? Is anybody denying it? Is her campaign pushing back? Do you see HuffPo doing a defense?

And, as I said, I am not a sufficient expert on clothing to make that judgment. I have a few friends that I think are, and I've forwarded them the links and asked them to take a look. Until I have confirmation...I'm going to reserve judgment. I recommend we ALL do.

Oh PuckyBock - you're not reserving judgment at all - that's what you've been going on and on and on and on about!

[carpedm9587]

I haven't seen anybody saying it's not true -- only her admiring fans who make excuses for her.

Nor have I - hence my suspension of judgment. I can neither confirm nor refute the claim.

I'm thinking you're really not in touch like you think you are with how divisive the country - and the media - is.

Despite the right wing-meme - while the so-called MSM does indeed lean to the left a tad, it is mostly interested in eyeballs and survivability. It does not have the focused political agenda of sites like Brietbart and Fox. It posts stories from across the political spectrum, with a lean to the left. I don't buy into the right-wing "MSM bad" meme.

OR!!!!!! There's nothing to "debunk", because she was wearing really expensive clothes while masquerading as "common folk", so they opted to just ignore it. Why is that so difficult to believe?

Because it requires all of the left-leaning sites to be conspiring to ignore the story. Not a SINGLE one has printed anything about it. I am not subject to conspiracy theories. A story can easily go viral. For a story to NOT be picked up by ANYONE requires collusion.

Yeah, you keep saying.

Because it requires all of the left-leaning sites to be conspiring to ignore the story. Not a SINGLE one has printed anything about it. I am not subject to conspiracy theories.

Yeah, you said that, too.

You must be REALLY bored to spend this much time overthinking something so simple. I knew it would get reaction, so I tossed it out there --- and guess what --- it got YOU!

I'm actually not "reacting." I read the story - looked into it - and told you what I thought. It's not much more complex than that...

I have one - irritating the dickens out of liberals.

You need a hobby....

[carpedm9587]

And, seeing at least some evidence of smoke, you wouldn't sit back down and say, "well, it's Alex Jones, so I'll just ignore it".

All of the "smoke" originates with Mr. Jones. He's a dubious source, at best. I'm surprised you're holding on so hard to this story...

And thus far, nobody has said it's not true. There are pictures, but I'm not a fashion expert by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that if it were not true, somebody would expose the lie.

Possibly, but that's an argument from silence. So...for now...I'm dubious and I withhold judgment until I can get confirmation or refutation.

Do the pictures look fake?

Nope

Is anybody denying it?

No that I can find.

Is her campaign pushing back?

Not that I have found.

Do you see HuffPo doing a defense?

Not that I can find.

Oh PuckyBock - you're not reserving judgment at all - that's what you've been going on and on and on and on about!

You are welcome to your opinion Until I have confirmation or refutation, I'm not going to take a position. I will note that I am dubious. That's as far as I'll go.

[Cow Poke]

You are welcome to your opinion Until I have confirmation or refutation, I'm not going to take a position. I will note that I am dubious. That's as far as I'll go.

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

Because it requires all of the left-leaning sites to be conspiring to ignore the story.

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....

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Starlight]

I checked her twitter...

The alt-right doesn’t seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots... You don’t get to keep the clothes, duh

So, not her clothes. Congrats CP, for yet another total fail on your part.

[Cow Poke]

I checked her twitter...

The alt-right doesn’t seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots... You don’t get to keep the clothes, duh

So, not her clothes. Congrats CP, for yet another total fail on your part.

Now, just hold on a sec, there, Starlight.... This is even dumber than I thought.

Apparently this confirms (paying attention, Carpe?) the fact that they were, indeed, very expensive clothes.

So, what we have here is tone-deafness --- how STUPID is it to get dressed in $3,500 'borrowed' clothes for "I'm for the working people" photoshoot?

I mean... how many of her constituents could even BORROW $3,500 outfits?

Thanks, Starlight, for confirming the hypocrisy.

[Starlight]

Now, just hold on a sec, there, Starlight.... This is even dumber than I thought.

Apparently this confirms (paying attention, Carpe?) the fact that they were, indeed, very expensive clothes.

So, what we have here is tone-deafness --- how STUPID is it to get dressed in $3,500 'borrowed' clothes for "I'm for the working people" photoshoot?

I mean... how many of her constituents could even BORROW $3,500 outfits?

Thanks, Starlight, for confirming the hypocrisy.

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.

[Cow Poke]

1. She didn't choose the clothes.

How do you know that? It's not all that unusual for a politician to get caught up in flap and come up with creative answers.

But even if she were telling the truth, who chose the people who chose the clothes?

2. She may have had no idea what their value was, and still have no idea what their value is.

So, she has really dumb handlers?

3. It does not confirm the alleged value of them.

She's making excuses -- if they were Walmart or Macy's clothes, that would be an even better story.

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.

You're just a joke if you don't think optics are important in US politics.

Again, Starlight, thanks for confirming the story.

[mossrose]

6) So? What do clothes have to do with her politics? Should she wear rough spun wool robes? Would you vote for her then?

It only matters if you are Mrs. Trump. You know, the one with the high heels at the hurricane site?

You'd have thought that there was nothing more important or political than that little episode, to the left.