BREAKING: AOC wears a "Tax The Rich" dress at the Met Gala, where a ticket costs $30,000 to attend.

[Hammy]

So what's the controversy supposed to be? Or is this just another way for guys to whine about what women do or wear and disguise it as a political call-out?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1437584107786096641

Reminds me of


Anyway yeah it’s a bit hypocritical on paper.  but I also don’t think this one thing means she’s insincere.

[AtorBoltox]

I've heard she also owns an Iphone

[Big Abraham]

"Tax the rich" huh? Wow, so daring, so brave...

We live in an age of the most unfettered downright dystopian wealth inequality the world has seen yet and this is the supposedly most "radical" slogan coming out of American politics? Just to "tax the rich", and this is what has them shaking in their boots? Pathetic

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Irony is dead

[Calthrina950]

"Tax the rich" huh? Wow, so daring, so brave...

We live in an age of the most unfettered downright dystopian wealth inequality the world has seen yet and this is the supposedly most "radical" slogan coming out of American politics? Just to "tax the rich", and this is what has them shaking in their boots? Pathetic

You seem not to be a fan of Ocasio-Cortez (I'm not either, as I've noted above). I do find the tendency of Democratic politicians to mingle with, and seek the admiration of, Hollywood to be a frustrating one. Obama's birthday party, for example, had numerous celebrities as guests. And other Democratic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi frequently socialize with and have been photographed with them. Most celebrities are of the "wine-track" liberal type, who spout liberal or progressive political positions but don't practice what they preach.

[lfromnj]

I've heard she also owns an Iphone

Going to a $30,000 Gala is necessary to function in society.
I am very intelligent

[Fight for Trump]

I think her militant socialism makes her hotter.

[Benjamin Frank]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

Also, given that this event is primarily a promotion for the Met, that explains why the celebrities were unmasked.  You are probably right that everybody else had to be masked, as the photographers were all masked, even when taking pictures outside. 

It can be argued that the event should have been canceled given Covid, and it can be argued that celebrities should have declined to attend given Covid, but it makes sense from a business promotion perspective why everything went as it did.

It's also interesting to see No Thinker Tom Rice who undoubtedly frequently argues 'life isn't fair, get over it' whining about how unfair all this is.

[Pericles]

So? Wealth shouldn't be abolished, but more of it needs to be distributed so that everyone else has a fair opportunity to succeed.

[Calthrina950]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean, at least "TAX THE RICH" is a sentiment that has something to do with this Met Gala's theme ("In America"). It's such a trash-tier gala otherwise; almost nobody else is even trying, with a few partial exceptions like Regina King's vaguely Harlem Renaissance look and the indeterminately Federal-era detailing on Bee Shaffer's bodice. Overall I'm not impressed.

[Calthrina950]

I mean, at least "TAX THE RICH" is a sentiment that has something to do with this Met Gala's theme ("In America"). It's such a trash-tier gala otherwise; almost nobody else is even trying, with a few partial exceptions like Regina King's vaguely Harlem Renaissance look and the indeterminately Federal-era detailing on Bee Shaffer's bodice. Overall I'm not impressed.

Most of today's celebrities are trashy, and can't hold a candle to the greats of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

[Fight for Trump]

By any measure, the US is already a high tax country, and most of the tax burden falls on the rich. The problem is those tax dollars are not well-spent, and government programs are utterly broken.

[Benjamin Frank]

By any measure, the US is already a high tax country, and most of the tax burden falls on the rich. The problem is those tax dollars are not well-spent, and government programs are utterly broken.

This is just factually wrong, of 35 measured OECD countries, the United States came in 30th based on tax revenue to GDP in 2019.  The OECD measured average was 33.8% while the United States is just 24.5%  There is no question that the ability to raise taxes in the United States without causing economic harm is available, although the first at least several hundred billion in any tax increases should go to reducing the deficit.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

I thought that U.S total taxation as a percent of GDP was higher than 24.5%.  It's long been mostly a myth that states have to balance their budgets. In reality most states actually need to balance their operating budgets, but not their capital budgets, so not surprisingly there are a lot of shell games.   This makes me suspect that even prior to Covid, many state budgets were in much worse health than was appreciated.

[Suburbia]

A lot of rich people want to be taxed.

No they don't.

Oh, I'm sure LeBron, J. Lo, Ben Affleck, Rihanna, Beckham, etc. all want to be taxed....or else, why are they supporting progressive or leftwing parties and causes?

Reba McEntire, Hank Williams, Marie Osmond, etc. are rightwingers and they don't want to be taxed....

Yes, tax the rich. All the rich athletes/celebrities/public figures/socialites should pay up and let's see where these taxes will go to....

Madonna is the biggest one....she lives in Portugal, New York City, United Kingdom, etc, and bashes wars and so on....

[Benjamin Frank]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

I don't think that is all that true, however, that aside, there are arguments as to why actors, or more broadly entertainers or the artistic community leans to the left.  While people put out pop psychological theories, I think the main reason is a practical one: historically the Democratic Party has been much more supportive of free speech in comparison to mostly Republican led efforts in the 1950s and 1960s.

I personally am not a supporter of absolutist free speech, but now that the Democratic Party is wanting to crack down more on free speech while Republicans pretend to be latter day converts (and a few of them may even be sincere) I suspect that there will be a shift in the artistic communities politically. I'm sure there will be a time lag, but I believe some of that is already starting to occur.

[Calthrina950]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

I don't think that is all that true, however, that aside, there are arguments as to why actors, or more broadly entertainers or the artistic community leans to the left.  While people put out pop psychological theories, I think the main reason is a practical one: historically the Democratic Party has been much more supportive of free speech in comparison to mostly Republican led efforts in the 1950s and 1960s.

I personally am not a supporter of absolutist free speech, but now that the Democratic Party is wanting to crack down more on free speech while Republicans pretend to be latter day converts (and a few of them may even be sincere) I suspect that there will be a shift in the artistic communities politically. I'm sure there will be a time lag, but I believe some of that is already starting to occur.

As I said above, I didn't think you would agree with my definition of Hollywood. It is a generic term for the entertainment industry, and the most prominent personages within it. But there is some truth to what you say about free speech. Decades ago, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the industry was not as monolithic in its Democratic leanings as it is now. Many of the celebrities and studio moguls of that era were Republicans or conservative. This of course, didn't stop Joseph McCarthy and other "anti-Communists" from pursuing and blacklisting many of the industry's figures during the Second Red Scare of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. That was a major event which probably helped push the industry towards it current political orientation.

[Benjamin Frank]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

I don't think that is all that true, however, that aside, there are arguments as to why actors, or more broadly entertainers or the artistic community leans to the left.  While people put out pop psychological theories, I think the main reason is a practical one: historically the Democratic Party has been much more supportive of free speech in comparison to mostly Republican led efforts in the 1950s and 1960s.

I personally am not a supporter of absolutist free speech, but now that the Democratic Party is wanting to crack down more on free speech while Republicans pretend to be latter day converts (and a few of them may even be sincere) I suspect that there will be a shift in the artistic communities politically. I'm sure there will be a time lag, but I believe some of that is already starting to occur.

As I said above, I didn't think you would agree with my definition of Hollywood. It is a generic term for the entertainment industry, and the most prominent personages within it. But there is some truth to what you say about free speech. Decades ago, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the industry was not as monolithic in its Democratic leanings as it is now. Many of the celebrities and studio moguls of that era were Republicans or conservative. This of course, didn't stop Joseph McCarthy and other "anti-Communists" from pursuing and blacklisting many of the industry's figures during the Second Red Scare of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. That was a major event which probably helped push the industry towards it current political orientation.

Well, I can  accept the notion of the broader arts community, though I don't think it's as monolithic as you make it out to be.  My bigger problem is thinking of a few high profile marriages or other partnerships and stating that must mean that Broadway, models, musicians and film and television actors are really nothing more than one big monolith.  

However, I think that is at least better premises than pointing to a few high profile celebrities as proof of anything.

While I don't think twitter is necessarily representative of anything either, and my twitter feed even less so, I have seen a number of twitter fights among younger actors: those on the left who are artists but believe they are socialist activists fighting for a cause (the so-called 'woke') and those who now identify more on the right who are free speech absolutists (whatever they're called.)

Of course, those free speech absolutists who are increasingly on the right aren't all younger actors.  There are a number who have clearly been reactionalized by the Democratic Party turning against free speech absolutism.  Again, twitter isn't necessarily representative of anything, but it's interesting to see a number of these artist types who used to be on the left feel the Democratic Party has abandoned them and feel the Republican Party has embraced them start to take on many more of the policy views of the Republican Party.

When you refer to those in the acting as 'hypocrites' I suspect that's a lot of what's was going on.  Many of them mouthed other left wing views, but only really cared about free speech for purely pragmatic reasons.

*I know there is no word reactionalized, but I had a friend who told me that the radicals are the far left while the reactionaries are the far right.  I think it makes a lot more sense to refer to a person who has become a far right winger as reactionalized than radicalized.

[Calthrina950]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

I don't think that is all that true, however, that aside, there are arguments as to why actors, or more broadly entertainers or the artistic community leans to the left.  While people put out pop psychological theories, I think the main reason is a practical one: historically the Democratic Party has been much more supportive of free speech in comparison to mostly Republican led efforts in the 1950s and 1960s.

I personally am not a supporter of absolutist free speech, but now that the Democratic Party is wanting to crack down more on free speech while Republicans pretend to be latter day converts (and a few of them may even be sincere) I suspect that there will be a shift in the artistic communities politically. I'm sure there will be a time lag, but I believe some of that is already starting to occur.

As I said above, I didn't think you would agree with my definition of Hollywood. It is a generic term for the entertainment industry, and the most prominent personages within it. But there is some truth to what you say about free speech. Decades ago, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the industry was not as monolithic in its Democratic leanings as it is now. Many of the celebrities and studio moguls of that era were Republicans or conservative. This of course, didn't stop Joseph McCarthy and other "anti-Communists" from pursuing and blacklisting many of the industry's figures during the Second Red Scare of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. That was a major event which probably helped push the industry towards it current political orientation.

Well, I can  accept the notion of the broader arts community, though I don't think it's as monolithic as you make it out to be.  My bigger problem is thinking of a few high profile marriages or other partnerships and stating that must mean that Broadway, models, musicians and film and television actors are really nothing more than one big monolith.  

However, I think that is at least better premises than pointing to a few high profile celebrities as proof of anything.

While I don't think twitter is necessarily representative of anything either, and my twitter feed even less so, I have seen a number of twitter fights among younger actors: those on the left who are artists but believe they are socialist activists fighting for a cause (the so-called 'woke') and those who now identify more on the right who are free speech absolutists (whatever they're called.)

Again, I'm not trying to suggest that the entire entertainment industry is a great monolith, but the ties between the most prominent performers in this country are deep and extensive. Nevertheless, it seems that you are making the argument that Ocasio-Cortez shouldn't be criticized for this gesture at the Gala, and you seem to believe that there is nothing wrong with what transpires between Democratic politicians and Hollywood celebrities. I'm of the belief that I don't think such relationships shouldn't exist. Hollywood celebrities are citizens and voters like the rest of us. But I think it does undermine the credibility of Democratic messages regarding wealth inequality, environmental degradation, and other such concerns.

[Benjamin Frank]

I've never been a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, and this gesture seems to be one of arrogance and extravagance on her part. But it is no secret that Hollywood leans very strongly to the left, and the irony is that many of the celebrities there probably associate with Ocasio-Cortez and view her in a favorable light. She's not the first Democratic politician to bask in their adulation. Obama is another, and his recent birthday party exemplifies that.

While I'm aware there were 'Hollywood' celebrities at this Met Gala, the Met itself is in New York City, not Los Angeles, and I believe there were more models and Broadway people there than from the Hollywood community. This probably explains why New York City Representative Ocasio-Cortez was there.

My definition of "Hollywood" is a very broad one. Not all may agree with it, but it's the definition that makes the most sense to me. I use "Hollywood" as a generic term to describe the entertainment industry, encompassing major actors, actresses, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes. And of course, one has to keep in mind that these models and prominent Broadway performers you speak of oftentimes mingle with, are married to, or otherwise interact with those from the actual Hollywood, so this blurs the distinction.

I don't think that is all that true, however, that aside, there are arguments as to why actors, or more broadly entertainers or the artistic community leans to the left.  While people put out pop psychological theories, I think the main reason is a practical one: historically the Democratic Party has been much more supportive of free speech in comparison to mostly Republican led efforts in the 1950s and 1960s.

I personally am not a supporter of absolutist free speech, but now that the Democratic Party is wanting to crack down more on free speech while Republicans pretend to be latter day converts (and a few of them may even be sincere) I suspect that there will be a shift in the artistic communities politically. I'm sure there will be a time lag, but I believe some of that is already starting to occur.

As I said above, I didn't think you would agree with my definition of Hollywood. It is a generic term for the entertainment industry, and the most prominent personages within it. But there is some truth to what you say about free speech. Decades ago, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the industry was not as monolithic in its Democratic leanings as it is now. Many of the celebrities and studio moguls of that era were Republicans or conservative. This of course, didn't stop Joseph McCarthy and other "anti-Communists" from pursuing and blacklisting many of the industry's figures during the Second Red Scare of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. That was a major event which probably helped push the industry towards it current political orientation.

Well, I can  accept the notion of the broader arts community, though I don't think it's as monolithic as you make it out to be.  My bigger problem is thinking of a few high profile marriages or other partnerships and stating that must mean that Broadway, models, musicians and film and television actors are really nothing more than one big monolith.  

However, I think that is at least better premises than pointing to a few high profile celebrities as proof of anything.

While I don't think twitter is necessarily representative of anything either, and my twitter feed even less so, I have seen a number of twitter fights among younger actors: those on the left who are artists but believe they are socialist activists fighting for a cause (the so-called 'woke') and those who now identify more on the right who are free speech absolutists (whatever they're called.)

Again, I'm not trying to suggest that the entire entertainment industry is a great monolith, but the ties between the most prominent performers in this country are deep and extensive. Nevertheless, it seems that you are making the argument that Ocasio-Cortez shouldn't be criticized for this gesture at the Gala, and you seem to believe that there is nothing wrong with what transpires between Democratic politicians and Hollywood celebrities. I'm of the belief that I don't think such relationships shouldn't exist. Hollywood celebrities are citizens and voters like the rest of us. But I think it does undermine the credibility of Democratic messages regarding wealth inequality, environmental degradation, and other such concerns.

People can be criticized for anything and I think AOC can be criticized for 'virtue signaling' here. I don't really care.  I think the far bigger 'virtue signalers' are the Covidiots like Governors Ron DeathSantis and Greg Abbott, but their 'virtue signaling' is resulting in unnecessary deaths.  Since this is at the Met, I think what AOC did was purely theater. It means nothing to me.

In regards to any alleged hypocrisy on her part, according to The Hill story, the dress was donated to her, and I'd be very surprised if she wasn't invited to attend and didn't actually pay $30,000 for a ticket.  

There might then be an issue of inappropriate donations or gifts to a politician, but that is pretty much entirely legal in the United States.

In terms of any broader hypocrisy, I reject that.  While this event was voluntarily for all to attend, I reject the notion that those who know the reality of global warming or who want to help the poor have to live in sackcloth and poverty.  For one thing, that creates a perverse incentive of "as long as I claim to reject the reality of global warming, I'm free to live my life without any restrictions but can complain about all those who do acknowledge the reality of global warming but don't live in sackcloth and poverty."

We are all limited by the choices available to us by the free market.  If a person needs to fly or wants to take a vacation that requires flight, they are as limited by the airplanes available from the free market whether they acknowledge the reality of global warming or not. Simply denying the reality of global warming does not free a global warming denier from the consequences of their action of flying any more than it does a person who acknowledges the reality of global warming.  

[7,052,770]

DRAG THEM QUEEN!

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I'm not a fan of AOC at all, but this is such stupid take. What's hypocritical or wrong about wearing an expensive dress or going to an expensive event? The dress says "tax the rich," not "spending money is evil." So long as she pays her taxes (and I have no reason to believe she doesn't), there's nothing inconsistent about this.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

A lot of rich people want to be taxed.

No they don't.

For the sake of Allah, please stop trying to personify the meme.