AOC's constituents weigh in on presidential run, recall her stunning 2018 political upset
Constituents in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's New York district are warning Republicans not to underestimate the firebrand progressive lawmaker who caused a sensational political upset in 2018 – as rumors swirl about the four-term congresswoman running for president in 2028.
Ocasio-Cortez hosted a town hall in New York City on Friday in the same neighborhood where she unseated longtime Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley to become the nation's youngest congresswoman.
Against all odds and with little money, her spectacular win sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party as she effectively ended the political career of Crowley, who at that point was a 10-term incumbent and eyeing being the next House speaker.
'Come For Me' Aoc Taunts Tom Homan After Border Czar Threatened To Refer Her To Justice Department
Some political observers say Crowley took Ocasio-Cortez for granted, while her constituents believe attaining the nation's highest office is not beyond her grasp. Fast-forward to 2025 and Ocasio-Cortez has become one of the biggest voices in a party yearning for political leadership.
The huge turnouts for her "Fight Oligarchy" tour events alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has fueled speculation she has enough momentum to launch a presidential bid, while she has also raked in $9.6 million in the first three months of the year, beating her own record fundraising haul.
Read On The Fox News App
Mark LaVergne, who's an independent and was outside Ocasio-Cortez's town hall but did not attend, told Fox News Digital that he believes she has a winning personality.
"Don't underestimate her. I mean, that was the mistake Joe Crowley and his people made seven years ago," LaVergne said. "They underestimated her. That was a fatal mistake."
Andrew Sokolof Diaz said Ocasio-Cortez's popularity appears to be growing and said it would be an honor to vote for her.
"Absolutely, we stand with her. I think she absolutely has the support, not only here in her district, but she has the support nationally, maybe even internationally, to run for president." Sokolof Diaz said.
Aleks Itskovich, who traveled from Brooklyn and moved to the U.S. from Russia when he was three years old, said he was inspired by the "Fight Oligarchy" tour and said it proves she connects with the ordinary person.
"It goes back to the authenticity," Itskovich said. "I think that she's able to come across as a genuine individual that is able to channel people's concerns directly and feel relatable, honest, that she's not coming from the 1%. She's one of the most successful politicians of this generation, so I want to keep seeing how that goes."
Hysterical Town Hall Attendee Interrupts Aoc, Yells About 'Genocide' In Gaza: 'You're A Liar!'
However, not all were keen on the potential move, with Woodside resident Mary Madden saying she felt Ocasio-Cortez is too young, while John Szewczuk, who has lived in Jackson Heights for 44 years, said she may be too left wing to win the presidency outright, but he would still back her.
About 450 people packed into a local school auditorium to hear Ocasio-Cortez talk about a host of issues ranging from local concerns about a major casino to national issues like Medicaid and the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts. Long lines outside the location caused the event to be delayed for nearly 20 minutes while those who couldn't get in were shuffled into an overflow room across the hall.
Inside, attendees gave Ocasio-Cortez a rousingly warm reception and appeared fully supportive of her legislative agenda and her representation of the district to date. Many questions from the audience centered around local issues, calls for a minimum wage hike, how to improve air quality, as well as asking her how she plans on tackling the Trump administration.
The loudest applause came when Ocasio-Cortez voiced her opposition to a proposed new casino in Queens, which would be part of new sports and entertainment park. The $8 billion project is being spearheaded by New York Mets' billionaire owner Steve Cohen and has gotten approval from the New York City Council. The congresswoman admitted, however, she doesn't have a say in the matter since it's a state issue and not in her district.
Applause also rang out when Ocasio-Cortez dared border czar Tom Homan to arrest her after he previously threatened to refer her to the Justice Department for giving advice to migrants on how to avoid being deported.
The town hall went off without a hitch except for an early disruption by a protester who heckled at Ocasio-Cortez about the war in Israel. She was then removed.
The town hall took place in a leafy section of Jackson Heights, known for its strong progressive leanings. A major avenue adjacent to the school was recently transformed into an "open street," where traffic was substantially reduced to create more public space for pedestrians, cyclists and community use.
"I love it, it's a great neighborhood, it is very diverse, probably one of the most diverse in the world," Szewczuk said.
Conversely, the school is about three blocks away from the Roosevelt Avenue commercial strip, which has become notorious for its open-air sex workers, trash-filled streets, crime, drugs and anti-social behavior.
Roosevelt Avenue runs along the southern border of Ocasio-Cortez's 14th District, and the strip is shared by Rep. Grace Meng. Fox News Digital observed at least 30 prostitutes soliciting sex along one block of Roosevelt Avenue about an hour after the town hall finished.
Some sidewalks along the squalid strip are hard to navigate given the sheer number of people – many of whom are migrants – selling hot food, fruit and vegetables, counterfeit goods and what appeared to be stolen goods.
Ocasio-Cortez never mentioned the strip, nor did any attendee ask about it in the question and answers section. While all questions were submitted in advance and Ocasio-Cortez left out a side door the moment the event ended, it appeared it was way down in the list of priorities for those in attendance.
Sokolof Diaz and Szewczuk said it's on local politicians to do more, while LaVergne said that Ocasio-Cortez has failed the neighborhood in that respect. LaVergne said he was also still angry that she helped stop Amazon opening a massive headquarters in Queens a few years ago.
"I feel very sad. Sometimes you walk by, there's a Dunkin' Donuts I frequent on Roosevelt and 82nd St., and I noticed that above that, there is some sort of thing going on. And I see the look in the eyes of these sex workers," LaVergne said.
"I really feel sorry for them. Some of them are here probably under difficult situations. Maybe they were forced here, maybe they're forced to do this kind of work. You've got to take care of the people that'll get you elected. I mean, that just seems like the most just thing. That's justice. Taking care of the people who got you elected."Original article source: AOC's constituents weigh in on presidential run, recall her stunning 2018 political upset
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP Fears Trump-Elon Breakup Might Get In ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill's Way
House Republicans are hoping the public breakup between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk does not last very long for the sake of the 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill. Thursday's news cycle was dominated by the clash between the President and the world's richest man and their petty attacks on each other — which included mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, black-eye makeup, as well as a back and forth over the contents of the reconciliation package the House recently passed. The showdown between the two appears to have House Republicans worried that more unwanted attention — pointing to the poison pills in the House package — would be on the reconciliation bill they are calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we've been reporting for some time, House Republicans have attempted to disguise their sweeping cuts to the social safety net by referring to the changes as 'reforms' like enacting work requirements for Medicaid, among other things. 'I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told CNBC Friday morning. Other House Republicans are also preaching deescalation for the sake of the bill they spent weeks fighting with each other over. 'Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they're both going to put the country first,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said, according to Politico. 'And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.' Meanwhile, Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Aaron Bean (R-FL) said Friday he was 'shocked and dismayed' to see his 'two friends fighting,' adding that he remains optimistic that the former allies can work it out. 'I believe there's a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,' Bean said. 'We need them together. We need to be united, and we're stronger together. So I'm very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.' — Emine Yücel A look into Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) dirty stalling tactics that helped her ultimately block Democrats on the House Oversight Committee from subpoenaing Elon Musk this week — even though not enough Republicans were initially present to override the effort. Some thoughts on the creator of Succession's new, satirical movie Mountainhead, and what it tells us about our current cultural moment, as the Fox News echo chamber, social media and AI merge to create a society in which reality is elusive. Let's dig in. Washington was consumed with drama related to Elon Musk on Thursday afternoon as the megabillionaire who spearheaded the so-called Department of Government Efficiency launched into a public social media spat with President Trump. But turmoil surrounding the President's former ally actually started earlier that morning when tensions over Musk essentially caused the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to short circuit and grind to a halt. This bizarre scene was a perfect distillation of how Congress is (or depending on your view, isn't) working in the second Trump era, with MAGA partisans going to cartoonish lengths to protect the president and his allies from scrutiny. The episode took place in a hearing that was nominally about the use of artificial intelligence. In his opening remarks, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) noted how Musk, whose DOGE minions have used AI to siphon up federal data and slash government programs, has changed that conversation. 'Optimizing the federal government's use of technology has long been a bipartisan priority of this committee,' Lynch said. 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides.' Following those remarks, Lynch moved to subpoena Musk to appear before the committee. His motion was quickly seconded. After last year's election, Republicans have a majority in the House and its committees. But at the time of Lynch's motion, one Democratic member said only six of the 25 Republicans on Oversight were present. These absences theoretically meant the Democrats had a temporary majority needed to issue the subpoena. However, this effort to have the committee dedicated to oversight provide some actual oversight of Musk was quickly derailed. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who was serving as chairwoman, almost immediately called to 'suspend' the proceedings. She then presided over a more than twenty minute delay as she strained the bounds of normal procedure to buy time for her colleagues to make their way to the hearing. The extended interlude was filled with surreal scenes as Democratic members attempted to question Mace and move forward with business as usual. At one point, even though Republicans were evidently outnumbered and outvoted, Mace declared that they had won a voice vote to consider a motion to table Lynch's motion. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) attempted to speak at this point and was shut down. 'I love you,' Mace said to him. 'This is not debatable.' Mace did not respond to a request for comment. At another point, as she swatted away Democrats' efforts to hold the vote, Mace seemed to wink. She also called Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) 'babe' when the congresswoman asked to do a roll call 'so we can determine if y'all really have the votes.' 'No ma'am,' Mace replied. As Democrats began to openly note that Mace's stonewalling appeared to be a fairly unprecedented effort to allow absent Republican members the time to filter in, Mace continually shut down discussion and efforts to hold a vote. One Republican member responded to an inquiry about whether they were following rules by noting that Democrats had lost the last election. That comment made the situation on Capitol Hill quite plain: After winning the election, Trump and his partisans are willing to throw out any traditional rule book. After about twenty minutes and twenty seven seconds, Mace allowed the vote to proceed. As she checked the numbers with the clerk, it was apparent the Republicans were still coming up short. Mace then allowed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had since slipped in, to vote. With those two final additions and the twenty minute-plus standstill, Republicans were able to table the effort to subpoena Musk by a vote of 21-20. In a statement to TPM, Lynch accused the GOP members of ' refusing to exercise Congressional authority on behalf of the American people to demand answers and accountability for the destruction, chaos, and cruelty Elon Musk and DOGE have unleashed on our government and on communities nationwide.' 'It is disturbing that Republicans would rather shield the richest man in the world from testifying publicly than fight for the folks who rely on VA health care, Social Security benefits, weather services, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and more vital programs and services that have been decimated by Elon Musk's chainsaw,' Lynch said, adding, 'The Oversight Committee was made for this moment, and Republicans are failing the American people by refusing to do their jobs. Just because Elon Musk has turned in his ID badge does not mean he can walk away from the monstrosity he has created and the permanent damage left in his wake.' — Hunter Walker 'I call this alternate reality, I call this place where these folks live, Bullshit Mountain,' Jon Stewart told the crowd during The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium debate with Bill O'Reilly in 2012. 'On Bullshit Mountain,' Stewart went on, 'our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified.' Bullshit Mountain would become Stewart's enduring metaphor for Fox News in the second half of the Obama presidency. It was a convenient shorthand to explain how Fox pundits could routinely espouse conspiratorial nonsense or fixate on an obscure event with seemingly no broad implications for the American public and use it as proof positive of the country's imminent collapse. Bullshit Mountain was an acknowledgment that the two major political parties didn't merely have different opinions on how to solve the country's problems, but increasingly were living in two different realities with entirely different problems. There was also the non-subtle accusation of cynicism in the name Bullshit Mountain. Maybe the audience believed this crap, but the executives and the anchors knew it was bullshit, right? In Jesse Armstrong's breakout show, 'Succession,' he satirized a fictional version of the Murdoch empire which took us behind the scenes of Bullshit Mountain. In Armstrong's interpretation of this world, there were the serious people who understood how to play the game and accumulate power, and those who were not serious, who didn't know how to play the game, or worse, didn't know it was a game at all. In his follow-up to Succession, HBO's new made-for-TV movie Mountainhead, Armstrong seems to acknowledge that Bullshit Mountain may no longer be a place created and controlled by serious people, that the bullshit from which the mountain is made may have broken confinement and swamped us all. Bullshit Mountain may now be where we all live — our dominant reality. Centered on a foursome of ultrarich tech founders (all men) who gather at a mountain lodge for a poker game as the world falls apart after the release of the AI-powered social network they all had some role in creating, Mountainhead depicts a world where seriousness might be a detriment to world dominance. 'Nothing means anything and everything is funny,' the founder of the AI social network explains when confronted by a litany of abuses enabled by his product, including a video of a kid juggling severed feet. The technology these founders have created has effectively dissolved any sense of shared reality by allowing anyone to create and propagate alternate realities which leads to the unraveling of the global order. But more interesting than the consequences of this technology, which we are in many ways already aware of, is the way in which the founders have isolated themselves from their own reality, both intentionally and unintentionally. After about 30 mins of dialogue laced in the idiomatic gibberish of Silicon Valley … 'first principles' .. 'post-human'… 'decel' … 'p(doom)' … 'game theory' … 'chunky numbers' … you realize these characters have nothing meaningful to say to each other, whether socially or in response to the global catastrophe they helped create. While there is a tinge of the tragic in their inability to communicate emotionally with each other, there is also something powerful in the artifice of their language, which protects them from having to meaningfully take responsibility for their actions. Viewing the potential collapse of the world through their screens, a vantage point from which nothing can be known for certain, the artificiality of their language lends an artificiality to the events, regardless of whether or not they are really happening. The collapse of a country's economy gets referred to as 'de minimis,' news of the mayor of Paris's assassination becomes an example of the 'compound distillation effect of the content.' But when the four characters end up bunkered in the basement, erroneously fearing retaliation from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, it's clear that they are as susceptible to the fake reality their technology has created as any of its users. Whether you find Mountainhead successful satire may depend on your priors. However, in the wake of DOGE, Elon's takeover and remaking of Twitter and the enthusiasm with which our major AI companies are cheerleading a new cold war with China, it's hardly a work of speculative fiction. In Jon Stewart's farewell speech from the Daily Show in 2015, he claimed that the bullshitters were getting lazy and that vigilance was our best defense. But his framing assumed a continued dichotomy between the bullshitters and the bullshited. He didn't offer any advice on what to do when there's no longer a difference. — Derick Dirmaier
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court
The Minnesota Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended attorney Susan Shogren Smith, who authorities say filed legal challenges in the November 2020 election without permission of the plaintiffs. The suspension from practicing law came Thursday, on the heels of a petition for disciplinary action against Shogren Smith filed by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility saying that she has conducted professional misconduct. The Brooklyn Center attorney was given a $10,000 sanction in 2021 after a judge found she 'bamboozled' voters into signing on as plaintiffs without their knowledge or permission to file legal challenges against the election of five congressional Democrats. Calls to Shogren Smith on Friday were not returned. The petition for disciplinary action noted that a three-judge panel had determined she had committed a 'fraud on the court' and gave her an additional $15,000 sanction. The petition claims that Shogren Smith has failed to pay the $25,000, according to court documents. 'Respondent's misconduct is serious,' the state Supreme Court document said, 'and involved not just lack of competence and failure to communicate with clients, but dishonesty to the courts and disregard for the discipline process.' The court documents said her actions were 'not a brief lapse of judgement' but something that occurred for several years. Shogren Smith is a member of the MN Election Integrity Team, a conservative group that sought to prevent the state from certifying its election results while President Donald Trump and his allies promoted unfounded claims of election fraud. On Dec. 1, 2020, she filed five complaints in Ramsey County District Court, naming as defendants Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Democratic candidates who won their Congressional races. Those legal challenges were filed in the names of 14 separate voters, at least four of whom had no idea they were participating. 'Susan Shogren Smith … perpetrated a fraud against this court and, more importantly, perpetrated a fraud against these plaintiffs,' Ramsey County Chief District Judge Leonardo Castro said at the time the first sanction was imposed. In February of 2021, Republican activist Corinne Braun discovered her name was connected to one of the cases. 'To my horror, I saw that I had sued Steve Simon and Ilhan Omar. It was a surreal moment for me,' she said, likening the discovery to finding her car had been broken into. Braun testified she had received an anonymous email asking to add her name to a list of disgruntled voters. She filled out the form and signed her name and then forwarded the email to about 5,000 people on her mailing list. As Shogren Smith explained in court, what Braun had signed was an affidavit that agreed she 'will be joining with other voters across Minnesota to contest Minnesota election results.' Braun, though, said she didn't understand the implications. Shogren Smith acknowledged she never spoke with the plaintiffs or informed them of the outcome of the case, even when Braun and two other unwitting plaintiffs were ordered to pay $3,873 to the defendants at the conclusion of the case. Shogren Smith said at the time, she believed someone else with the MN Election Integrity Team was having those conversations with plaintiffs. 'I absolutely believed that those conversations were happening with these plaintiffs,' she said. U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on 'Zionist people' appears in federal court
