Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

my2hands

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

Halifax2TheMax

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

Spiritual_Chaos

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

Are you rollplaying Unsung right now, or have you not kept up lately but still spitting and barking like a rabid dog?

mace1229

EdsonNascimento said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

Why is healthcare attached to jobs? Why does their plan and their physical and mental health revolve around the particular terms of their employment? 

It doesn't have to be and that's a fair (but wrong headed) debate.  Why would you want to give up BILLIONS of healthcare subsidies from corporations that are based on competition for employees? I'm sure you don't understand all that means, but taxation replacing competitive healthcare subsidy would be the absolutely dumbest thing we could do as a country (and thus why Obama went down that road - he's not too bright when it comes to healthcare and bending the cost curve).   There are many more people who successfully navigate employment to maintain their health coverage that is better than anything the government could ever reasonably provide (including ensuring proper, comprehensive access that countries with national care do not).

Go ahead - chase Amazon away. Kill Employer subsidized coverage.  Do the math. It's not pretty.  It's funny to me how people do these polls showing "uneducated" white man votes for Trump. Uneducated means a lot of things. There are a lot of people holding college degrees, even PhD's that are not very smart as it pertains to anything outside a book.  Just as there are a lot of people who don't have college educations that are brilliant  (hmmmmmmm... Can you think of someone you might think this of that is related to this very message board?).

That's cute. So you're saying the US scheme provides better, more efficient healthcare than other industrialized nations? Is that borne out in our mortality rates? How does our per capita healthcare spending vis-a-vis our mortality rate compare with other western democracies? (hint: we're way at the top by a large margin for the former, and we're nowhere near the top for the latter). 

I can make statistics say things too.  How heterogeneous are the populations of the other countries you speak of? What are the salaries of doctors in those other countries (or do you think we should cut their salaries?)?  You can't simply take those snippets. you have to know how to put them in proper perspective. What's our teen pregnancy ratio vs. other countries?  Should we abandon them or take care of them and the higher incident of both cost and poor outcomes?  These are just examples. Think a bit deeper than what the media feeds you. Where Trump is wrong is it's not FAKE news. But, it is misrepresented news.   What they are saying most of the time is true. It's just not well thought out or objectively presented.

We have many more deep seeded problems that we've accepted and feel right to address than other countries simply don't address.   And that comes at a cost both financially and morbidity-wise.  So, yes our healthcare system is better than Canada (for example). People might go to Canada to get their meds b/c of that pricing anomaly.  But, they aren't going there to get surgeries.  

Here's why I believe Jeff is right. Employers and cooperations  don't pay the doctors and medical bills. They pay a third party who makes more money the less they pay for treatments. These third party insurance companies are a billion dollar industry. When insurance was first created it wasn't a necessity like it is now. People could still afford a doctor visit. But insurance has made that impossible. With what we pay in premiums alone our healthcare should be free. But we have to pay insurance premiums and a lot of money out of pocket on top of thay for any services we actually get.
Two groups make money on health services. The health providers and the insurance companies. One of those provides virtually no health services directly to us, but takes nearly an equal share in the profit.
I don't like the idea of socialized or government run care, but I think it would be better than what we have.
I think the best option is keep it privatized, but get rid of the middle man (insurance).  Either pay for everything out of pocket, which would be a fraction of what it costs now, or have the health providers be their own insurance, like an HMO. If the goal was to make money only on services rendered and not on the policy itself, healthcare costs would be cut in half and much more affordable. 
Most doctor offices have at least 1 full time employee to just deal with the mess that is insurance. That is why so many offer a cash discount if you claim to not have insurance. Why do we pay a third party so much money for our health care, it has gotten out of control.

Here's why he and you are wrong - Medicare Advantage provides greater benefits to Seniors and Disableds than Medicare Fee For Service (government direct pay) does for less cost.  MA bench marking (rate) formulas are based on a percentage of Medicare FFS.  In addition, they provide better quality as measured by CMS' quality scoring than Medicare FFS does.    

In terms of commercial coverage- who here wants to give their current Employer sponsored coverage and contribution schedule up for complete out of pocket medical cost?

Anyone who thinks Government can run anything better than a competitive free market is not being honest about the government around them.

And if you think people could afford payments out of pocket - lol.  You are living in dream land. I want to join you and Alexandra there.

I would not look forward to government run healthcare. I wouldn't want health services to be run like the DMV, education, VA, or many other government run programs. But I do think it would be better than what we currently have.
I also do not look forward to paying for everything out of pocket, but then again, it would be better than what we have. I, and most others, are already paying thousands out of pocket. 
I am the average family, paying just over 20k a year (combined with my contribution + employer contribution, which is almost 50/50). On top of that we spend thousands for actual services. Even in our most expensive years with having kids we would not have even come close to what we spend. Even after all that ridiculous insurance premiums, having a baby will still cost about $3000 in hospital charges.
We probably spend a total of about 30k a year average on health when you factor in already out of pocket costs + premiums. Out of that 30k my employer contributes about 12k in premiums, I pay about 10k in premiums and 100% of everything else out of pocket. My out of pocket expenses are already easily 15-20k a year, plus whatever my employer pays.
Doctor visits are still $50, a specialty dr is $100, and ER is $200 + whatever else they want to charge. Prescriptions are through the roof. Much of the time the over-the-counter price on prescriptions was even cheaper than our co-pay price. But there are laws that prevent us from paying the cheaper out of pocket price if we have insurance. Why would I pay a $60 to insurance for meds if the actually price is only $35? But I'm forced to. Isn't the point of insurance to make services more affordable? You can find countless articles, and I've posted some on the healthcare thread, of examples where the copay for expensive treatments like an MRI are more expensive than the MRI. Someone might have a $2500 copay for an MRI, but the cash price at the hospital is $1500. Makes no sense.
So yes, if I got that $30k a year that is paid currently and paid for everything out of pocket, I would still keep most of that 30k by the end of the year.
I just don't see how anyone can say our current system is working to benefit the majority. We are a healthy family, I go to the doctor maybe twice a year, same as my 2 kids. There's no way we should be paying $30k for health services every year.
I would so much rather see that 30k in my pocket, and just pay $200 for a doctor visit, or $5,000 for a trip to the hospital myself.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

Why is healthcare attached to jobs? Why does their plan and their physical and 

Here's why I believe Jeff is right. Employers and cooperations  don't pay the doctors and medical bills. They pay a third party who makes more money the less they pay for treatments. These third party insurance companies are a billion dollar industry. When insurance was first created it wasn't a necessity like it is now. People could still afford a doctor visit. But insurance has made that impossible. With what we pay in premiums alone our healthcare should be free. But we have to pay insurance premiums and a lot of money out of pocket on top of thay for any services we actually get.
Two groups make money on health services. The health providers and the insurance companies. One of those provides virtually no health services directly to us, but takes nearly an equal share in the profit.
I don't like the idea of socialized or government run care, but I think it would be better than what we have.
I think the best option is keep it privatized, but get rid of the middle man (insurance).  Either pay for everything out of pocket, which would be a fraction of what it costs now, or have the health providers be their own insurance, like an HMO. If the goal was to make money only on services rendered and not on the policy itself, healthcare costs would be cut in half and much more affordable. 
Most doctor offices have at least 1 full time employee to just deal with the mess that is insurance. That is why so many offer a cash discount if you claim to not have insurance. Why do we pay a third party so much money for our health care, it has gotten out of control.

Here's why he and you are wrong - Medicare Advantage provides greater benefits to Seniors and Disableds than Medicare Fee For Service (government direct pay) does for less cost.  MA bench marking (rate) formulas are based on a percentage of Medicare FFS.  In addition, they provide better quality as measured by CMS' quality scoring than Medicare FFS does.    

In terms of commercial coverage- who here wants to give their current Employer sponsored coverage and contribution schedule up for complete out of pocket medical cost?

Anyone who thinks Government can run anything better than a competitive free market is not being honest about the government around them.

And if you think people could afford payments out of pocket - lol.  You are living in dream land. I want to join you and Alexandra there.

I would not look forward to government run healthcare. I wouldn't want health services to be run like the DMV, education, VA, or many other government run programs. But I do think it would be better than what we currently have.
I also do not look forward to paying for everything out of pocket, but then again, it would be better than what we have. I, and most others, are already paying thousands out of pocket. 
I am the average family, paying just over 20k a year (combined with my contribution + employer contribution, which is almost 50/50). On top of that we spend thousands for actual services. Even in our most expensive years with having kids we would not have even come close to what we spend. Even after all that ridiculous insurance premiums, having a baby will still cost about $3000 in hospital charges.
We probably spend a total of about 30k a year average on health when you factor in already out of pocket costs + premiums. Out of that 30k my employer contributes about 12k in premiums, I pay about 10k in premiums and 100% of everything else out of pocket. My out of pocket expenses are already easily 15-20k a year, plus whatever my employer pays.
Doctor visits are still $50, a specialty dr is $100, and ER is $200 + whatever else they want to charge. Prescriptions are through the roof. Much of the time the over-the-counter price on prescriptions was even cheaper than our co-pay price. But there are laws that prevent us from paying the cheaper out of pocket price if we have insurance. Why would I pay a $60 to insurance for meds if the actually price is only $35? But I'm forced to. Isn't the point of insurance to make services more affordable? You can find countless articles, and I've posted some on the healthcare thread, of examples where the copay for expensive treatments like an MRI are more expensive than the MRI. Someone might have a $2500 copay for an MRI, but the cash price at the hospital is $1500. Makes no sense.
So yes, if I got that $30k a year that is paid currently and paid for everything out of pocket, I would still keep most of that 30k by the end of the year.
I just don't see how anyone can say our current system is working to benefit the majority. We are a healthy family, I go to the doctor maybe twice a year, same as my 2 kids. There's no way we should be paying $30k for health services every year.
I would so much rather see that 30k in my pocket, and just pay $200 for a doctor visit, or $5,000 for a trip to the hospital myself.

You're right that none of that makes sense. It's an excellent example of what happens when health care is run by companies for profit.

If you didn't have to pay the $30K per year for insurance and instead had the option of having no insurance, you'd probably be fine.... until something major happened to one of you, which statistically is likely, and then you risk being one of those bankrupted by medical costs. It's a travesty. 

oftenreading

I also recall EdsonNascimento commenting something to the effect that "no one goes to Canada for surgery" (I'm not going to wade through all these posts trying to find that). That also isn't true. We certainly have fewer foreign nationals coming to Canada for medical care than some other countries, because in general our system discourages it and we do not market to that audience, but some hospitals choose to, and they bring in many millions. There are few stats released but the Toronto hospital network reportedly took in $30 million 2011-2015, primarily for cardiac and cancer surgeries.

Ledbetterman10

Gotta give her credit for having some fight in her. If there's one thing Democratic Party platform that I'm 100% on board with, it's climate change. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-gets-in-closed-door-fight-with-veteran-lawmaker-over-climate-change/ar-BBPKX46?ocid=spartanntp

mace1229

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

Why is healthcare attached to jobs? Why does their plan and their physical and 

Here's why I believe Jeff is right. Employers and cooperations  don't pay the doctors and medical bills. They pay a third party who makes more money the less they pay for treatments. These third party insurance companies are a billion dollar industry. When insurance was first created it wasn't a necessity like it is now. People could still afford a doctor visit. But insurance has made that impossible. With what we pay in premiums alone our healthcare should be free. But we have to pay insurance premiums and a lot of money out of pocket on top of thay for any services we actually get.
Two groups make money on health services. The health providers and the insurance companies. One of those provides virtually no health services directly to us, but takes nearly an equal share in the profit.
I don't like the idea of socialized or government run care, but I think it would be better than what we have.
I think the best option is keep it privatized, but get rid of the middle man (insurance).  Either pay for everything out of pocket, which would be a fraction of what it costs now, or have the health providers be their own insurance, like an HMO. If the goal was to make money only on services rendered and not on the policy itself, healthcare costs would be cut in half and much more affordable. 
Most doctor offices have at least 1 full time employee to just deal with the mess that is insurance. That is why so many offer a cash discount if you claim to not have insurance. Why do we pay a third party so much money for our health care, it has gotten out of control.

Here's why he and you are wrong - Medicare Advantage provides greater benefits to Seniors and Disableds than Medicare Fee For Service (government direct pay) does for less cost.  MA bench marking (rate) formulas are based on a percentage of Medicare FFS.  In addition, they provide better quality as measured by CMS' quality scoring than Medicare FFS does.    

In terms of commercial coverage- who here wants to give their current Employer sponsored coverage and contribution schedule up for complete out of pocket medical cost?

Anyone who thinks Government can run anything better than a competitive free market is not being honest about the government around them.

And if you think people could afford payments out of pocket - lol.  You are living in dream land. I want to join you and Alexandra there.

I would not look forward to government run healthcare. I wouldn't want health services to be run like the DMV, education, VA, or many other government run programs. But I do think it would be better than what we currently have.
I also do not look forward to paying for everything out of pocket, but then again, it would be better than what we have. I, and most others, are already paying thousands out of pocket. 
I am the average family, paying just over 20k a year (combined with my contribution + employer contribution, which is almost 50/50). On top of that we spend thousands for actual services. Even in our most expensive years with having kids we would not have even come close to what we spend. Even after all that ridiculous insurance premiums, having a baby will still cost about $3000 in hospital charges.
We probably spend a total of about 30k a year average on health when you factor in already out of pocket costs + premiums. Out of that 30k my employer contributes about 12k in premiums, I pay about 10k in premiums and 100% of everything else out of pocket. My out of pocket expenses are already easily 15-20k a year, plus whatever my employer pays.
Doctor visits are still $50, a specialty dr is $100, and ER is $200 + whatever else they want to charge. Prescriptions are through the roof. Much of the time the over-the-counter price on prescriptions was even cheaper than our co-pay price. But there are laws that prevent us from paying the cheaper out of pocket price if we have insurance. Why would I pay a $60 to insurance for meds if the actually price is only $35? But I'm forced to. Isn't the point of insurance to make services more affordable? You can find countless articles, and I've posted some on the healthcare thread, of examples where the copay for expensive treatments like an MRI are more expensive than the MRI. Someone might have a $2500 copay for an MRI, but the cash price at the hospital is $1500. Makes no sense.
So yes, if I got that $30k a year that is paid currently and paid for everything out of pocket, I would still keep most of that 30k by the end of the year.
I just don't see how anyone can say our current system is working to benefit the majority. We are a healthy family, I go to the doctor maybe twice a year, same as my 2 kids. There's no way we should be paying $30k for health services every year.
I would so much rather see that 30k in my pocket, and just pay $200 for a doctor visit, or $5,000 for a trip to the hospital myself.

You're right that none of that makes sense. It's an excellent example of what happens when health care is run by companies for profit.

If you didn't have to pay the $30K per year for insurance and instead had the option of having no insurance, you'd probably be fine.... until something major happened to one of you, which statistically is likely, and then you risk being one of those bankrupted by medical costs. It's a travesty. 

Okay, we can have catastrophic coverage for cases like that.
But in all reality, what would that be and how much would that cost? There isn't a lot that I think should cost more than 30k . Car accidents are covered through car insurance, so I don;t have to worry about that.
And if there is, if something happens and I'm stuck with a 100k bill, well, just a few years of not paying those 30k premiums will make up for that anyway.  I wouldn't hesitate at all to get all my money paid to me and go cash for health services.
The problem is if I opt out of insurance, my employer doesn't give me what they would be paying in premiums.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mace1229 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

EdsonNascimento said:

jeffbr said:

Why is healthcare attached to jobs? Why does their plan and their physical and 

Here's why I believe Jeff is right. Employers and cooperations  don't pay the doctors and medical bills. They pay a third party who makes more money the less they pay for treatments. These third party insurance companies are a billion dollar industry. When insurance was first created it wasn't a necessity like it is now. People could still afford a doctor visit. But insurance has made that impossible. With what we pay in premiums alone our healthcare should be free. But we have to pay insurance premiums and a lot of money out of pocket on top of thay for any services we actually get.
Two groups make money on health services. The health providers and the insurance companies. One of those provides virtually no health services directly to us, but takes nearly an equal share in the profit.
I don't like the idea of socialized or government run care, but I think it would be better than what we have.
I think the best option is keep it privatized, but get rid of the middle man (insurance).  Either pay for everything out of pocket, which would be a fraction of what it costs now, or have the health providers be their own insurance, like an HMO. If the goal was to make money only on services rendered and not on the policy itself, healthcare costs would be cut in half and much more affordable. 
Most doctor offices have at least 1 full time employee to just deal with the mess that is insurance. That is why so many offer a cash discount if you claim to not have insurance. Why do we pay a third party so much money for our health care, it has gotten out of control.

Here's why he and you are wrong - Medicare Advantage provides greater benefits to Seniors and Disableds than Medicare Fee For Service (government direct pay) does for less cost.  MA bench marking (rate) formulas are based on a percentage of Medicare FFS.  In addition, they provide better quality as measured by CMS' quality scoring than Medicare FFS does.    

In terms of commercial coverage- who here wants to give their current Employer sponsored coverage and contribution schedule up for complete out of pocket medical cost?

Anyone who thinks Government can run anything better than a competitive free market is not being honest about the government around them.

And if you think people could afford payments out of pocket - lol.  You are living in dream land. I want to join you and Alexandra there.

I would not look forward to government run healthcare. I wouldn't want health services to be run like the DMV, education, VA, or many other government run programs. But I do think it would be better than what we currently have.
I also do not look forward to paying for everything out of pocket, but then again, it would be better than what we have. I, and most others, are already paying thousands out of pocket. 
I am the average family, paying just over 20k a year (combined with my contribution + employer contribution, which is almost 50/50). On top of that we spend thousands for actual services. Even in our most expensive years with having kids we would not have even come close to what we spend. Even after all that ridiculous insurance premiums, having a baby will still cost about $3000 in hospital charges.
We probably spend a total of about 30k a year average on health when you factor in already out of pocket costs + premiums. Out of that 30k my employer contributes about 12k in premiums, I pay about 10k in premiums and 100% of everything else out of pocket. My out of pocket expenses are already easily 15-20k a year, plus whatever my employer pays.
Doctor visits are still $50, a specialty dr is $100, and ER is $200 + whatever else they want to charge. Prescriptions are through the roof. Much of the time the over-the-counter price on prescriptions was even cheaper than our co-pay price. But there are laws that prevent us from paying the cheaper out of pocket price if we have insurance. Why would I pay a $60 to insurance for meds if the actually price is only $35? But I'm forced to. Isn't the point of insurance to make services more affordable? You can find countless articles, and I've posted some on the healthcare thread, of examples where the copay for expensive treatments like an MRI are more expensive than the MRI. Someone might have a $2500 copay for an MRI, but the cash price at the hospital is $1500. Makes no sense.
So yes, if I got that $30k a year that is paid currently and paid for everything out of pocket, I would still keep most of that 30k by the end of the year.
I just don't see how anyone can say our current system is working to benefit the majority. We are a healthy family, I go to the doctor maybe twice a year, same as my 2 kids. There's no way we should be paying $30k for health services every year.
I would so much rather see that 30k in my pocket, and just pay $200 for a doctor visit, or $5,000 for a trip to the hospital myself.

You're right that none of that makes sense. It's an excellent example of what happens when health care is run by companies for profit.

If you didn't have to pay the $30K per year for insurance and instead had the option of having no insurance, you'd probably be fine.... until something major happened to one of you, which statistically is likely, and then you risk being one of those bankrupted by medical costs. It's a travesty. 

Okay, we can have catastrophic coverage for cases like that.
But in all reality, what would that be and how much would that cost? There isn't a lot that I think should cost more than 30k . Car accidents are covered through car insurance, so I don;t have to worry about that.
And if there is, if something happens and I'm stuck with a 100k bill, well, just a few years of not paying those 30k premiums will make up for that anyway.  I wouldn't hesitate at all to get all my money paid to me and go cash for health services.
The problem is if I opt out of insurance, my employer doesn't give me what they would be paying in premiums.

I think a lot of medical issues could easily cost over $30k. A surgery, with a few days in hospital, some imaging, medication and follow up easily could. 

But honestly, wouldn’t it just be better to not have to worry about that at all? To just know you don’t have to pay out of pocket?

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

I'm pointing out towards women.  It is always about their clothes.

A guy in a suit is a guy in a suit unless he's Gotti.  That guy had some suits.

my2hands

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

Context. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it's about her now public financial issue and the tweeter trying to infer she has money for nice clothes so why cant she afford an apartment, which obviously is silly. Not defending the tweeter at all, just think its ridiculous thst this is news, that we try to make every little thing into some scandal, or label it as quickly as we can as racism, or misogyny, or whatever. 

Hope she picks her battles better than this moving forward 

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

I'm pointing out towards women.  It is always about their clothes.

A guy in a suit is a guy in a suit unless he's Gotti.  That guy had some suits.

Dave Letterman had some suits as well. And it’s always about their “appearance.” She should troll them by wearing a burlap sack to the office. Or a head to toe, face covered burqha. And the only male politician I can readily recall being criticized for what they wore was Obama and his tan suit. Oh, the outrage!

Hi!

tempo_n_groove 

A guy in a suit is a guy in a suit unless he's Gotti.  That guy had some suits.

Just better not be a tan suit.

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

I'm pointing out towards women.  It is always about their clothes.

A guy in a suit is a guy in a suit unless he's Gotti.  That guy had some suits.

Dave Letterman had some suits as well. And it’s always about their “appearance.” She should troll them by wearing a burlap sack to the office. Or a head to toe, face covered burqha. And the only male politician I can readily recall being criticized for what they wore was Obama and his tan suit. Oh, the outrage!

You should research women and clothes in politics.  There has been many an article about it.

My thoughts?

Who gives a shit.

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

I'm pointing out towards women.  It is always about their clothes.

A guy in a suit is a guy in a suit unless he's Gotti.  That guy had some suits.

Dave Letterman had some suits as well. And it’s always about their “appearance.” She should troll them by wearing a burlap sack to the office. Or a head to toe, face covered burqha. And the only male politician I can readily recall being criticized for what they wore was Obama and his tan suit. Oh, the outrage!

You should research women and clothes in politics.  There has been many an article about it.

My thoughts?

Who gives a shit.

My thoughts as well but it’s hilarious to see repubs get so “outraged” or derisive over such trivial matters. They know they’re losing the message war.

Hi!

mace1229

If you Google search the words "Trump wardrobe" you can find dozens of negative articles about Donald and the first lady's clothing. For her theres a lot of positive ones too, but for Donald it is pretty much all negative.
I just don't see how this is a race, gender, political issue. Lots of people are criticized for what they wear.

tempo_n_groove

mace1229 said:

If you Google search the words "Trump wardrobe" you can find dozens of negative articles about Donald and the first lady's clothing. For her theres a lot of positive ones too, but for Donald it is pretty much all negative.
I just don't see how this is a race, gender, political issue. Lots of people are criticized for what they wear.

Prêt-à-porter

Ready to wear

Spiritual_Chaos

my2hands said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

Wtf is she talking about taking pictures of backsides and dark hates light? Because someone mentioned she has nice clothes? Thats misogyny now? 

Is this what politics has become, fucking tweeter beefs and social media garbage? 

I wish her luck and thick skin, pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda isn't gonna be easy 

How many tweets have their been of a newly elected repub man and his wardrobe?

Context. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it's about her now public financial issue and the tweeter trying to infer she has money for nice clothes so why cant she afford an apartment, which obviously is silly. Not defending the tweeter at all, just think its ridiculous thst this is news, that we try to make every little thing into some scandal, or label it as quickly as we can as racism, or misogyny, or whatever. 

Hope she picks her battles better than this moving forward 

I hope she attacks everyone trying to mock or belittle her. 

https://twitter.com/Dictionarycom/status/1063211892951388160

CM189191

mace1229 said:

If you Google search the words "Trump wardrobe" you can find dozens of negative articles about Donald and the first lady's clothing. For her theres a lot of positive ones too, but for Donald it is pretty much all negative.
I just don't see how this is a race, gender, political issue. Lots of people are criticized for what they wear.

Counterpoint: tRUmps own a clothing line & melenia was a model

Criticizing their fashion shouldn't be off limits for them.