Stupid Things Ocasio-Cortez Says: Megathread

[89Hen]

I honestly had never seen much of the woman until I watched her in an interview on Meet the Press Daily this evening. After watching her in that interview I think people who dismiss her do so at their peril. And, no, it's not like Trump. Trump comes off as a buffoon. In that interview I watched, at least, she came off as articulate and quick on her feet. Even her vocabulary was impressive. She said some things I think are incorrect. But she was very persuasive in the way she handled herself.

Maybe the interview I watched was an exception. I don't know. But she handled herself very well. If Republicans are thinking of making her the villain and calling attention to her they may want to rethink that strategy. They do NOT want to give that woman oxygen because she's very effective.

She’s young and will have her share of gaffs but she’s clearly smarter than the POTUS and 3/4’s of Congress. (Not that either is saying much).

There is a big difference between gaffs and ignorance. A gaff is misspeaking. She simply has bad ideas and little knowledge.

[mainejeff]

Bad ideas and little knowledge.....that reminds me of someone in a much more powerful position.

[AZGrizFan]

Bad ideas and little knowledge.....that reminds me of someone in a much more powerful position.

Difference is: HIS position has term limits. We're probably stuck with her until she's 90.

[kalm]

She’s young and will have her share of gaffs but she’s clearly smarter than the POTUS and 3/4’s of Congress. (Not that either is saying much).

There is a big difference between gaffs and ignorance. A gaff is misspeaking. She simply has bad ideas and little knowledge.

I see a number of ideas shared with Sanders. Ideas that have worked elsewhere. Yet Sanders isn’t getting accused of being stulid.

Maybe we should list all the bad ideas many “smart” politicians and economists keep advocating for....

[Ibanez]

There is a big difference between gaffs and ignorance. A gaff is misspeaking. She simply has bad ideas and little knowledge.

I see a number of ideas shared with Sanders. Ideas that have worked elsewhere. Yet Sanders isn’t getting accused of being stulid.

Maybe we should list all the bad ideas many “smart” politicians and economists keep advocating for....

Stulid is as stulid does.

[kalm]

I see a number of ideas shared with Sanders. Ideas that have worked elsewhere. Yet Sanders isn’t getting accused of being stulid.

Maybe we should list all the bad ideas many “smart” politicians and economists keep advocating for....

Stulid is as stulid does.

Gawdammit, Mark!

[AZGrizFan]

Full Text of the "Green New Deal". THIS is the mindset of dangerous people like Cortez. And it's being embraced by those in powerful positions in the Donk party because why? Because it's a way to get votes. Votes of the young, uninformed, naïve single-issue voters--voters who invented the concept of being "triggered". It's got every trigger ever invented in it, it tugs the heartstrings for every disenfranchised, abused or disadvantaged group EVER, in the history of America, it empowers every perceived underprivileged, underappreciated, or downtrodden group (unions, women, minorities, indigenous peoples, etc., etc., etc.) whether they need it or not, and it is a gigantic, colossal, unprecedented money and power grab by the federal government. And at the end of the day, 90% of it isn't possible, but they'll have taxed us into oblivion in the process. If this doesn't scare the living shit out of you then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution:

Whereas the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 oC’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—
(1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;
(2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;
(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050; Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation;

Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with—
(1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;
(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and
(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median; Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States— (1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and (2) by acting as a threat multiplier;

Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations;

and Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity—
(1) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
(2) to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and
(3) to counteract systemic injustices;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—
(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;
(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;
(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
(i) clean air and water;
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
(iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and
(v) a sustainable environment; and
(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green 10 New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—
(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;
(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—
(i) by supporting family farming;
(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and
(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;
(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;
(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;
(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and
(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

[89Hen]

Ideas that have worked elsewhere.

Like Iceland?

[Ibanez]

How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?

[kalm]

How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?

Hence the “New”.

[Ibanez]

How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?

Hence the “New”.

I still have no idea

[kalm]

Ideas that have worked elsewhere.

Like Iceland?

Among others. Hell, part of the agenda is a dividing line between states.

But I get it...new ideas are scary...at least according to Z and coincidently a number of conk friends on Facebook who are using almost the exact same language....

[kalm]

Hence the “New”.

I still have no idea

Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.

[Ibanez]

I still have no idea

Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.

Oh, really? I had no idea.

How does "New," answer my question, " How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?"

[89Hen]

But I get it...new ideas are scary..

No, new ideas aren't scary. Crazy ideas are scary. Dumb ideas are scary.

[AZGrizFan]

But I get it...new ideas are scary..

No, new ideas aren't scary. Crazy ideas are scary. Dumb ideas are scary.

There's literally NOTHING "new" in that plan. It's just an amalgamation of every far left socialist donk wet dream from the past 25 years. The SCARY part is that instead of being denounced for what it is, its being given even an ounce of thought by anyone with a brainstem.

[GannonFan]

I still have no idea

Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.

Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

There is a big difference between gaffs and ignorance. A gaff is misspeaking. She simply has bad ideas and little knowledge.

I see a number of ideas shared with Sanders. Ideas that have worked elsewhere. Yet Sanders isn’t getting accused of being stulid.

Maybe we should list all the bad ideas many “smart” politicians and economists keep advocating for....

If it's so great move "elsewhere" they already ha e the great ideas and you would be happier there instead if wrecking another country with socialism. If it's so great why are people not flocking there?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.

Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.

Add to that, it was WWII that ultimately pulled this country out of the Depression, and led to the creation of the huge middle class once it ended...

So to conclude, the FDR New Deal did little other than create an illusion of success for today’s progressives to try and emulate...unless that have another world war planned that they are not telling us about...

[Col Hogan]

Progressives are trying to use the race to the moon as an example...recalling JFKs speech where he called on the country to come together to reach the moon by the end of the decade (1960s).

There is a very big difference between Kennedy’s call to arms to reach the moon, and this New Green Deal...

Kennedy gave the country a specific, narrowly focused goal...clearly defined...with a single agency charged with accomplishing it.

The New Green Deal is an amalgamation of every progressive idea out there...there is no single goal (maybe there is...pure socialism) with no clear definition of the mission at hand...and no single agency charged with guiding us to success...

And to put a 10 year “goal” on something that most people have to admit is near impossible is to do nothing but set us up for what we call in the military as “mission creep”...

Let’s take one example that we already have lots of data on...creating a high speed rail network...

California has been working on this since voters approved it in 2008...the latest estimate of completion of project has been a continuous moving target, now stretched out to after 2030...

The estimated cost to construct the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, pegged at $35 billion in 2009, has ballooned to $77.3 billion, according to the latest business plan by the High-Speed Rail Authority. The figure includes the initial segment through the Valley, which is estimated at $10.6 billion.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/arti ... rylink=cpy

Now, imagine expanding this project nation-wide...and this is just one “idea” in the New Green Deal...just the management over-head for this project and the needed materials will drain resources from any other project...

Are some of the ideas good goals??? Sure they are...

But to try and feed us everything is this “resolution” and feed the uneducated masses that it can be done in 10 years...that’s just plain stupid...

[Ibanez]

Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.

Add to that, it was WWII that ultimately pulled this country out of the Depression, and led to the creation of the huge middle class once it ended...

So to conclude, the FDR New Deal did little other than create an illusion of success for today’s progressives to try and emulate...unless that have another world war planned that they are not telling us about...

What? The New Deal created an "Illusion of success"? Are you implying that the TVA, FDIC, the SEC, Soil Conservation, Fannie Mae among many other programs were failures? Programs and agencies that still exist and do good work in 2019.

[Ibanez]

Progressives are trying to use the race to the moon as an example...recalling JFKs speech where he called on the country to come together to reach the moon by the end of the decade (1960s).

There is a very big difference between Kennedy’s call to arms to reach the moon, and this New Green Deal...

Nailed it. There's a huge, monumental difference between going to the Moon in less than 10 years and this plan.

I like pie in the sky ideas. Shoot for them and do what you can. The overarching idea behind the Green Plan isn't bad. But the ideas are too dang crazy.

[Grizalltheway]

Progressives are trying to use the race to the moon as an example...recalling JFKs speech where he called on the country to come together to reach the moon by the end of the decade (1960s).

There is a very big difference between Kennedy’s call to arms to reach the moon, and this New Green Deal...

Nailed it. There's a huge, monumental difference between going to the Moon in less than 10 years and this plan.

I like pie in the sky ideas. Shoot for them and do what you can. The overarching idea behind the Green Plan isn't bad. But the ideas are too dang crazy.

[Pwns]

So the "green new deal" is not only going to be a goodie bag of social justice pet causes, it's going to pledge to move away from objectively the safest form of energy in terms of deaths per megawatt hour of power and the largest carbon-neutral source there is. Is it any wonder why so many people see environmentalism as a cover for other agendas?

BTW, on the subject of nuclear power, check out this piece.

Germany spent $580 billion on renewables and its emissions have been flat for a decade. And all of that unreliable solar and wind has made Germany’s electricity the second most expensive in Europe.

Emissions in California rose after it closed one nuclear plant and will rise again if closes another. To the extent its emissions declined it was from the replacement of electricity from coal with electricity from cheaper and cleaner natural gas.

Bottom line? Had California and Germany spent on nuclear what they instead spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power.

[Col Hogan]

Add to that, it was WWII that ultimately pulled this country out of the Depression, and led to the creation of the huge middle class once it ended...

So to conclude, the FDR New Deal did little other than create an illusion of success for today’s progressives to try and emulate...unless that have another world war planned that they are not telling us about...

What? The New Deal created an "Illusion of success"? Are you implying that the TVA, FDIC, the SEC, Soil Conservation, Fannie Mae among many other programs were failures? Programs and agencies that still exist and do good work in 2019.

If WWII had not happened, the New Deal would not have pulled this country out of the Depression...thus, “the illusion of success”...

On their own, your named programs did not pull this country out of the Depression...I did not disparage them...