Conquer Club

Guess she has to wait till socialism kicks in.

Apartment in?

HitRed wrote:Guess she has to wait till socialism kicks in.

So only rich people should represent us. You do realize that what an oligarchy is, right?

Also, last I checked congressional Republicans were fine with getting good benefits. Just not extending them to poor people.

The output of my internal logic system generally sides with conservatism but I don't get this at all. What is the point that people are trying to make of this as I've been reading about this all over.

Does this mean that she shouldn't have gotten the job because she didn't have enough money to liver there prior to getting the job?

Is it supposed to be some form of irony because she is a democratic socialist?

If she is stating from a position where everything should be free (socialism) then what wouldn't be expensive? Made me laugh.

Lots of members of Congress live in their offices.

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/26/45820766 ... pitol-hill

Her thing seems to be she can't afford a place to live for three months until she starts drawing a salary.

Is her credit so poor that she can't take a loan of three months rent and then pay it back when she starts drawing a salary? She was a waitress before this so she will clearly have a surplus from her previous lifestyle and could easily afford to repay a short-term loan. If her credit is this poor that she can't even qualify for one, what does it say about her personal responsibility and, consequentially, her competence to sit in the U.S. Congress?

A final option for her is to check-in to a homeless shelter in DC, unless she believes she's better than the poor, in which case her whole campaign seems to be a farce.

Seems like she got elected because the electorate identified with her problems.