• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

The socialist lefist lala land and the people that buy into it.

these people have no clue what they are talking about.
 
Objective Voice said:
First off, I didn't bring up the issue of the "lie" behind the explanation concerning the fact sheet on AOC's NGD proposal. You did!

Second, I've made it clear I couldn't comment on the viability of the "lie" since I hadn't read the fact sheet.

Third, I posted you the exact wording from the NGD proposal to prove that the language being attributed to it from the Right isn't true.

So, instead of you acknowledging that guys like Tucker Carlson didn't do any fact checking himself, he and other GOP pundits just went with whatever slander they found to denounce the proposal on its face. Moreover, you go right back to the "lie" in an effort to prove me wrong despite the Tweets you've posted make it clear that the fact sheet that was leaked was a "work in-progress" and wasn't intended to be released at the time it was drafted.

You really need to stop while you're behind.
Click to expand...

You're doubling down on the lie? :lamo
 
Objective Voice said:
Okay, upon further review I clearly convoluted the two. That wasn't my intention. What I was trying to say was private capital doesn't have to be personal cash. Such money (investments) can come from a wide variety of sources. However, private companies don't always rely on private capital alone to finance their business. Many use a mixture of private/public funding sources to remain liquid. Now, you may not like the fact that taxpayer dollars are used to fund private companies, but if you truly believed that you'd be out protesting all the subsidies big oil receives from taxpayer funding.
Click to expand...

Oil companies don't receive subsidies from the government.
 
apdst said:
No you didn't. Nice try at supporting your lie, though.
Click to expand...
maybe the issue is ...is that you don't know what a link is....and.....you have no concept of indirect subsidies, which are a benefit, none the less.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
maybe the issue is ...is that you don't know what a link is....and.....you have no concept of indirect subsidies, which are a benefit, none the less.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what a link is.

You link makes an unsubstantiated claim:

Today Rex Tillerson, under oath, denied the existence of fossil fuel subsidies. This is dangerously incorrect. In fact, the Oil & Gas Industry receives more than $17 Billion in Subsidies per year, and according to our new analysis ExxonMobil likely gets as much as $1 billion of that.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
I know exactly what a link is.

You (sic) link makes an unsubstantiated claim:
Click to expand...
Sure, they document, and you get to say it is "unsubstantiated".

The problem really is the English language, is it not?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure, they document, and you get to say it is "unsubstantiated".

The problem really is the English language, is it not?
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't understand what "prove" means.
 
NeverTrump said:
Welcome to the new age of politics, everybody:

Although it's just an outline it's a huge step forward to move the conversation in the right direction. Yes there are some problems, but I agree with about 90% of this proposal and if all you do is nit-pick it, then I assume you agree with 90% of it too! :mrgreen:



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline


If she just gets some of this passed and conventional thinking says she just might pull it off. She'll be on equal playing field with the President of the United States in terms of legislative deals. Trump's comprehensive tax reform plan is the only thing even remotely comparable to this that he's done or thought of.
Click to expand...

She may have just handed 2020 to Trump......

Labor unions fear Democrats’ Green New Deal poses job threat | Reuters
 
Harshaw said:
The practical probability of it passing is completely irrelevant to what it is. And what it is is a government takeover of the entire economy to forcefully reshape it to service a lengthy long-standing lefty-"progressive" wish list, significant portions of which having nothing real to do with "climate change," something considerably more red than anything which has ever been attempted here.
Click to expand...
The Green New Deal (a.k.a. Socialism) main purpose is control. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and failure of socialism everywhere (the economy of socialist countries of North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are crumbling), they needed to repackage it in a new way. That New Deal package was the environmental issues. These watermelons campaign is geared to supplant capitalism with socialism. Theirs 10 years national draft plan is aimed at establishing a socialist economy. Soviet Union 5 years plans ended in economic failure and its demise in 1990. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is than in practice socialism doesn’t work, but capitalism works.
 
Objective Voice said:
Try again...

It wasn't her actual New Green Deal proposal that got scrubbed from the Internet. It was a blog post that proclaimed to outline her proposal (fact-sheet) which contained false and misleading information that got scrubbed. As to the lie about what the fact-sheet contained, I really can't speak to that since I haven't read the fact-sheet. I can tell you that in my reading of the proposal, it doesn't contain the language Tucker Carlson complained about.

New Green Deal, Page 5, subparagraph (1)(B):



So, clearly somebody put out misinformation. The question is who? Frankly, I would've taken down the fact-sheet, too, if what it contained was inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong!
Click to expand...
It was the FAQs which got taken down. They were not "inaccurate, misleading, or wrong". They were originally provided with the New Green Deal document by Cortez, herself.

Here it is:

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Green-New-Deal-FAQ-Fact-Sheet-Feb-7-2019.pdf
 
apdst said:
You're doubling down on the lie? :lamo
Click to expand...

What lie was told? Did the bullet point(s) that was illustrated actually come from the NGD proposal? I've already showed you it did not.

Did AOC's aides deny being premature in posting the fact-sheet or did they defend their actions and call AOC the liar for changing the wording in her proposal? The Tweets you posted makes it clear they acted prematurely and acknowledged their mistake.

So, how am I doubling-down on a lie when I've merely used your own posts along with the actually wording from the proposal to point out your mistake?

Like I said, stop while you're behind.
 
Objective Voice said:
What lie was told? Did the bullet point(s) that was illustrated actually come from the NGD proposal? I've already showed you it did not.

Did AOC's aides deny being premature in posting the fact-sheet or did they defend their actions and call AOC the liar for changing the wording in her proposal? The Tweets you posted makes it clear they acted prematurely and acknowledged their mistake.

So, how am I doubling-down on a lie when I've merely used your own posts along with the actually wording from the proposal to point out your mistake?

Like I said, stop while you're behind.
Click to expand...

That lie. :lamo
 
apdst said:
That lie. :lamo
Click to expand...

Really? So, you're denying that I posted the text directly from the NGD proposal that did not read as fact-sheet laid out which Tucker Carlson aired on his show?

Here's what the bullet point from draft fact-sheet Tucker Carlson gripped about and you're defending:

* Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

Compare that to what's actually in the proposal:

* to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

His guest who is (or was) and AOC aid admitted that the draft fact-sheet w/FAQs was a work in-progress and was leaked prematurely. Your post #321 confirms that. I posted the exact section from the NGD proposal that DOES NOT contain that exact language (See my post #318 and above) Where have I lied concerning this matter? If anything, you're the one in denial.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Really? So, you're denying that I posted the text directly from the NGD proposal that did not read as fact-sheet laid out which Tucker Carlson aired on his show?

Here's what the bullet point from draft fact-sheet Tucker Carlson gripped about and you're defending:

* Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

Compare that to what's actually in the proposal:

* to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

His guest who is (or was) and AOC aid admitted that the draft fact-sheet w/FAQs was a work in-progress and was leaked prematurely. Your post #321 confirms that. I posted the exact section from the NGD proposal that DOES NOT contain that exact language (See my post #318 and above) Where have I lied concerning this matter? If anything, you're the one in denial.
Click to expand...

Keep on lying, cuz:

The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the "unwilling to work" part, but the overview document, released by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office, does include the "unwilling" language. The overview entails the "nuts and bolts" of the plan. Ocasio-Cortez identifies as a democratic socialist.

Redirect Notice
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Keep on lying, cuz:
Click to expand...

Really, adpts? You're going to repost the exact same fact-sheet/FAQs that AOC's aide per the Tweet YOU POSTED acknowledged was an incomplete draft that was leaked and subsequently posted online prematurely? The same document presented in the Tucker Carlson segment you linked to?

We're done, dude. :doh
 
Objective Voice said:
Really, adpts? You're going to repost the exact same fact-sheet/FAQs that AOC's aide per the Tweet YOU POSTED acknowledged was an incomplete draft that was leaked and subsequently posted online prematurely? The same document presented in the Tucker Carlson segment you linked to?

We're done, dude. :doh
Click to expand...

You said:

Objective Voice said:
Try again...

It wasn't her actual New Green Deal proposal that got scrubbed from the Internet. It was a blog post that proclaimed to outline her proposal (fact-sheet) which contained false and misleading information that got scrubbed. As to the lie about what the fact-sheet contained, I really can't speak to that since I haven't read the fact-sheet. I can tell you that in my reading of the proposal, it doesn't contain the language Tucker Carlson complained about.

New Green Deal, Page 5, subparagraph (1)(B):



So, clearly somebody put out misinformation. The question is who? Frankly, I would've taken down the fact-sheet, too, if what it contained was inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong!
Click to expand...

I've proven that that is a flase statement. Keep dancing, though. You might get somewhere.

Don't alter my username.
 
Objective Voice said:
Really, adpts? You're going to repost the exact same fact-sheet/FAQs that AOC's aide per the Tweet YOU POSTED acknowledged was an incomplete draft that was leaked and subsequently posted online prematurely? The same document presented in the Tucker Carlson segment you linked to?

We're done, dude. :doh
Click to expand...
Leaked :lol:! It was emailed out from AOCs office to over 300 organizations that is a purposeful act not a leak. Admit it AOC is a airhead.!
 
Sandokan said:
The Green New Deal (a.k.a. Socialism) main purpose is control. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and failure of socialism everywhere (the economy of socialist countries of North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are crumbling), they needed to repackage it in a new way. That New Deal package was the environmental issues. These watermelons campaign is geared to supplant capitalism with socialism. Theirs 10 years national draft plan is aimed at establishing a socialist economy. Soviet Union 5 years plans ended in economic failure and its demise in 1990. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is than in practice socialism doesn’t work, but capitalism works.
Click to expand...
Amazon canceled its plans to build an expansive corporate campus in New York City in Queens, where Ocasio-Cortez was elected, which would have created about 25, 000 jobs.

Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist, tweeted that "anything is possible”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔@AOC
Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.
Click to expand...
Well, she has cost New York thousands of jobs, putting here own political interest above her community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom