Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

Jun 17, 2013
466
85
320
You know, I used to think AOC was an interesting, if a bit misguided, young woman.
Then I thought she was naive and just spoke before she really thought things through.
Not anymore...
No, she's pretty much reach full loony lefty level. This is the kind of insane, utterly delusional and detached from reality thinking that gets people killed in large numbers. I don't know why I'm in the least surprised as this is quite common among socialists and she's a self acknowledged socialist so this should have been expected.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
Oh, I see. This craptastic document is just like every hate crime hoax- no, its not real, why you mad, she's just trying to start a conversation. Besides, TRUMP!

No. This plan is so dumb it likely will knock politicians out of the running. It is so astronomically Ill thought out that the kindest thing I can hope for any defender is that they haven't actually read it.

But hey, it sounds moral because it makes wild claims like it will "promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, 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’’);"

And sometimes its better to be AOCs definition of moral than be factually correct, right? So let's all go undermine this thriving economy and go starve in the gutters together in the name of state ownership.

And dont worry, the pollution from China and developing nations will still more than cover for us.

Take the L on this piece of trash. It's not a moral proposal. It's a completely immoral call for state communism that uses so called 'moral' buzzwords to lie to you about its intentions.
Don’t let ssolitare get you too riled up. He waves his arms and tries to say a lot of things that sound good, but there’s rarely ever any substance to his posts. Not worth your time.
 
Likes: autoduelist
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
Oh, I see. This craptastic document is just like every hate crime hoax- no, its not real, why you mad, she's just trying to start a conversation. Besides, TRUMP!

No. This plan is so dumb it likely will knock politicians out of the running. It is so astronomically Ill thought out that the kindest thing I can hope for any defender is that they haven't actually read it.

But hey, it sounds moral because it makes wild claims like it will "promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, 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’’);"

And sometimes its better to be AOCs definition of moral than be factually correct, right? So let's all go undermine this thriving economy and go starve in the gutters together in the name of state ownership.

And dont worry, the pollution from China and developing nations will still more than cover for us.

Take the L on this piece of trash. It's not a moral proposal. It's a completely immoral call for state communism that uses so called 'moral' buzzwords to lie to you about its intentions.
To be honest I'd like to know if this non-binding resolution is big enough, or if it is vastly overkill (not that it's possible to achieve) for confronting global warming.

This is more or less a political message about what a macro vision for combating climate change in urgency would entail. And then you have things like guaranteed jobs, high-quality healthcare for all, etc, so I wouldn't read too much into it. It's just a vision.

The plan of this resolution would be aided with actual bills, that actually need to be passed. This is when we come back to reality. You may dislike the vision, but let's see what the bills say.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Does that mean you were totally okie dokie with President Trump's "ban all Muslims" identity based political policy suggestion?
Travel ban for 7 countries, 1 of them Catholic (I assume), 1 of them "atheist'. So 5 out of 50 Muslim majority countries = Muslim ban.

Gotcha.

And even *IF* it was a Muslim ban, what's so outlandish about that other than offending your snowflake senses?
Thank you for proving my point. For a Trump fan, I would have hoped you were more familiar with his campaign.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doubles-down-on-vow-to-bar-muslims
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
What story are you trying to tell with a 2015 article when the actual policy that was implemented was applied to only high risk countries as identified by Obama, not all muslims?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
What story are you trying to tell with a 2015 article when the actual policy that was implemented was applied to only high risk countries as identified by Obama, not all muslims?
That's what I mean when I said you're not addressing the right thing. It's not about the policy that got implemented. We'll, it sorta is, but the main context of the discussion is the process in getting there.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
That's what I mean when I said you're not addressing the right thing. It's not about the policy that got implemented. We'll, it sorta is, but the main context of the discussion is the process in getting there.
I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. Trump suggesting limiting muslim immigration during his campaign is on par with proposing banning air travel and cow farts and guaranteeing economic security for those unwilling to work?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
@matt404au maybe this makes more sense if I quote the relevant portions going further back.

It's interesting that there's finally a Democrat who uses Trump like tactics (effectively) to maneuver an agenda. It's also interesting that a lot of Trump fans don't recognize those tactics when used by the "other side".
Interesting that some commentators seem to be ok with employment of wholly unrealistic "Tactics" so long as the person matching the preferred identity politics is the one employing them.

Not quite the 'gotcha' they think it is.
Does that mean you were totally okie dokie with President Trump's "ban all Muslims" identity based political policy suggestion?
Travel ban for 7 countries, 1 of them Catholic (I assume), 1 of them "atheist'. So 5 out of 50 Muslim majority countries = Muslim ban.

Gotcha.

And even *IF* it was a Muslim ban, what's so outlandish about that other than offending your snowflake senses?
Thank you for proving my point. For a Trump fan, I would have hoped you were more familiar with his campaign.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doubles-down-on-vow-to-bar-muslims
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,968
2,871
530
Original comment >> observation of original comment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deflection of observation >> addressing of deflection >> false 'gotcha'.

Look how far we moved from that observation tho. Mission accomplished.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Trump is Hitler, so let's be more like Trump?
President Trump's negotiating tactics involve large initial offers that get negotiated back in order to achieve a compromise that still gets him some or most of what he wants while putting all the attention on him.

He initially said ban all Muslims. He eventually negotiated that into travel restrictions on some countries with the real reason (document verification security)

He initially said build a wall. But as you can see, he is willing to compromise with various other methods of border security while also giving Democrats DACA concessions.

In the meantime, he's moved the Overton Window in a direction favorable to him while his soundbites stick in the minds of his base, which makes them think he's a straight shooter and he tells it like it is, even if they don't really know why.

AOC is doing the same thing, and if people on the right don't take it seriously, it'll come back to bite them in the ass, just like I told gaf back in 2015 that if they don't take Trump seriously, it'll bite THEM in the ass too.

@Schrödinger's cat I see NPC babble isn't exclusively a problem for liberals either.
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
President Trump's negotiating tactics involve large initial offers that get negotiated back in order to achieve a compromise that still gets him some or most of what he wants while putting all the attention on him.

He initially said ban all Muslims. He eventually negotiated that into travel restrictions on some countries with the real reason (document verification security)

He initially said build a wall. But as you can see, he is willing to compromise with various other methods of border security while also giving Democrats DACA concessions.

In the meantime, he's moved the Overton Window in a direction favorable to him while his soundbites stick in the minds of his base, which makes them think he's a straight shooter and he tells it like it is, even if they don't really know why.

AOC is doing the same thing, and if people on the right don't take it seriously, it'll come back to bite them in the ass, just like I told gaf back in 2015 that if they don't take Trump seriously, it'll bite THEM in the ass too.

@Schrödinger's cat I see NPC babble isn't exclusively a problem for liberals either.
This still doesn't address why the Democrats would be adopting his methods after 3 years of comparing him to Hitler. They go low, we drill to the centre of the earth, I suppose?

If AOC is trying to ape Trump's tactics, she's doing a very poor job of it. The relative change from limiting all Muslim immigration to limiting Muslim immigration from 7 high risk countries is orders of magnitude lower than the relative change from banning cow farts and air travel and guaranteeing economic security for those unwilling to work to whatever it is that AOC could possibly achieve in practice. Moreover, I get the impression that Trump knows what he's doing -- it's controlled chaos. AOC, on the other hand, is a bull in a china shop that thinks it's a leopard. Aiming high and negotiating down is part of the "Art of the Deal", of course, but you still have to aim within the stratosphere.

I suppose you're going to try to step this back now and suggest you were just playing devil's advocate from the centre though.
 
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
This still doesn't address why the Democrats would be adopting his methods after 3 years of comparing him to Hitler. They go low, we drill to the centre of the earth, I suppose?
Cuz it works?
If AOC is trying to ape Trump's tactics, she's doing a very poor job of it. The relative change from limiting all Muslim immigration to limiting Muslim immigration from 7 high risk countries is orders of magnitude lower than the relative change from banning cow farts and air travel and guaranteeing economic security for those unwilling to work to whatever it is that AOC could possibly achieve in practice. Moreover, I get the impression that Trump knows what he's doing -- it's controlled chaos. AOC, on the other hand, is a bull in a china shop that thinks it's a leopard. Aiming high and negotiating down is part of the "Art of the Deal", of course, but you still have to aim within the stratosphere.
Trump was often described as a bull in a china shop as well. Those opposed to the ideas on the other side have a hard time understanding. Your same argument was used from the liberal side to counter what I said about Trump back in 2015 too.

I suppose you're going to try to step this back now and suggest you were just playing devil's advocate from the centre though.
You suppose wrongly.
 
Last edited:
President Trump's negotiating tactics involve large initial offers that get negotiated back in order to achieve a compromise that still gets him some or most of what he wants while putting all the attention on him.

He initially said ban all Muslims. He eventually negotiated that into travel restrictions on some countries with the real reason (document verification security)

He initially said build a wall. But as you can see, he is willing to compromise with various other methods of border security while also giving Democrats DACA concessions.

In the meantime, he's moved the Overton Window in a direction favorable to him while his soundbites stick in the minds of his base, which makes them think he's a straight shooter and he tells it like it is, even if they don't really know why.

AOC is doing the same thing, and if people on the right don't take it seriously, it'll come back to bite them in the ass, just like I told gaf back in 2015 that if they don't take Trump seriously, it'll bite THEM in the ass too.

@Schrödinger's cat I see NPC babble isn't exclusively a problem for liberals either.
Not quite.

The muslin travel ban was kicked by Obama and scored by trump. Trump never made a bill banning the seven countries just Syria. The other 6 came from a national security bill based on countries of security concern. Which already had some limits. Trump just included countries of concern in a separate bill so not only Syria would get the new restrictions.

Obama aides were involved with both drafts. A set up if I ever saw one.
 
Likes: danielberg
Mar 18, 2018
1,423
945
230
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
To be honest I'd like to know if this non-binding resolution is big enough, or if it is vastly overkill (not that it's possible to achieve) for confronting global warming.

This is more or less a political message about what a macro vision for combating climate change in urgency would entail. And then you have things like guaranteed jobs, high-quality healthcare for all, etc, so I wouldn't read too much into it. It's just a vision.

The plan of this resolution would be aided with actual bills, that actually need to be passed. This is when we come back to reality. You may dislike the vision, but let's see what the bills say.
1) if we needed a solution this dire to save the planet, we're already fucked.

2) even if this completely was affordable and completely fixed our carbon footprint, we are not the major problem. China and developing nations shit on the environment for breakfast in a way America could only dream of.

3) if AOC was serious about the environment, she would have created a more sane, reasonable solution that cost, say, a couple trillion at most. Even that would be expensive. That is, if you want to be serious about the environment, then you also need to jettison unnecessary massive expenditure like universal healthcare. If you need a car to get to work, dont try to buy multiple diamonds necklaces at the same time. Unless, of course, the car is just a trojan horse and isnt your actual goal.

4) if AOC was serious about saving the environment, she wouldn't have littered the entire document with callouts to intersectional politics [equity, gender earnings gap, frontline communities, etc.] That she does tells us two things: a) the environment isn't her primary concern, and b) she is using buzzwords that she knows people like you will respond favorably to in order to hide her true agenda.

5) if AOC was serious about theenvironment, the document wouldn't come off as a badly written high school paper someone wrote at 2am the night before it was due. This set her supposed cause back.

6) if Aoc was serious about the environment and the imminent danger she believes we are in, she wouldn't remove nuclear power as a potential solution.

7) if aoc was serious about the environment, she wouldn't create a document that literally calls for govt takeover off industry and assets. This is a call for communism under the guise of social justice and environmentalism, she is fear mongering. " If only you -care-, you'd support me! Anyone who doesn't is eviiiiil."

This is not a guideline for fixing the environment. It is a guideline for massive seizure of private assets by the govt with the promise [lie] of fixing the environment and social justice. Neither would be achieved.

I am eternally grateful she did not have smarter minds write up a slightly more reasonable document, because this one is so willfully stupid and transparent she literally outlines and verbalizes why the govt must take over everything [I quoted all this elsewhere in a precious post].

This document is a wake up call to anyone paying attention. A nation that willfully undertook such stupidity would destroy its economy, experience hyper inflation, destroy its power infrastructure, and starve to death. She promotes policy that would kill millions and calls herself the moral one. And she'd call me racist because I'd ask how she plans to pay for it.

This plan is, as I've said before, a dumpster fire. It is not a conversation starter, it is a civilization destroyer. I am perfectly fine with some random individual having such dumb ideas, but that the entire cast of democratic candidates has signed on makes it crystal clear they've lost sight of reality and no longer care about the actual future of this nation.

Or the environment, for that matter, because as I've said no one who actually wanted to solve problems would suggest this drivel.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
7) if aoc was serious about the environment, she wouldn't create a document that literally calls for govt takeover off industry and assets. This is a call for communism under the guise of social justice and environmentalism, she is fear mongering. " If only you -care-, you'd support me! Anyone who doesn't is eviiiiil."
Can you cite the portion of the bill that literally calls for government takeover of industry and assets?
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
Can you cite the portion of the bill that literally calls for government takeover of industry and assets?
Check the previous page. it's from her faq.

Um... here. I'll quote it

-----------

Hell, don't take my word for it.
Her own document reads:

"The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient."

Darn, right?

But wait,there's more.

"Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time."

yes, you're reading that right . By her own words even if the entire resources of all the billionaires and companies were forced to stop making all the products they currently make and dedicated themselves entirely to her plan... that's still not enough. Those are her words.

So how does she suggest paying for it? Print money [aka hyper inflation, devaluing the dollar, destroying our economy]

But even that isn't enough.

Because "the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver."


There it is in plain text. Even if every billionaire and Company dedicate themselves to her plan 100% , it's not enough. The government must be in control of these resources in order for it to work. And not just the rich, and not just companies. "Every actor." That's your resources.

That's a direct call for state communism.


-----'

Unless you call the state taking over everything and becoming the "primary driver" of economic and resource expenditure something else?
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
1) if we needed a solution this dire to save the planet, we're already fucked.

2) even if this completely was affordable and completely fixed our carbon footprint, we are not the major problem. China and developing nations shit on the environment for breakfast in a way America could only dream of.

3) if AOC was serious about the environment, she would have created a more sane, reasonable solution that cost, say, a couple trillion at most. Even that would be expensive. That is, if you want to be serious about the environment, then you also need to jettison unnecessary massive expenditure like universal healthcare. If you need a car to get to work, dont try to buy multiple diamonds necklaces at the same time. Unless, of course, the car is just a trojan horse and isnt your actual goal.

4) if AOC was serious about saving the environment, she wouldn't have littered the entire document with callouts to intersectional politics [equity, gender earnings gap, frontline communities, etc.] That she does tells us two things: a) the environment isn't her primary concern, and b) she is using buzzwords that she knows people like you will respond favorably to in order to hide her true agenda.

5) if AOC was serious about theenvironment, the document wouldn't come off as a badly written high school paper someone wrote at 2am the night before it was due. This set her supposed cause back.

6) if Aoc was serious about the environment and the imminent danger she believes we are in, she wouldn't remove nuclear power as a potential solution.

7) if aoc was serious about the environment, she wouldn't create a document that literally calls for govt takeover off industry and assets. This is a call for communism under the guise of social justice and environmentalism, she is fear mongering. " If only you -care-, you'd support me! Anyone who doesn't is eviiiiil."

This is not a guideline for fixing the environment. It is a guideline for massive seizure of private assets by the govt with the promise [lie] of fixing the environment and social justice. Neither would be achieved.

I am eternally grateful she did not have smarter minds write up a slightly more reasonable document, because this one is so willfully stupid and transparent she literally outlines and verbalizes why the govt must take over everything [I quoted all this elsewhere in a precious post].

This document is a wake up call to anyone paying attention. A nation that willfully undertook such stupidity would destroy its economy, experience hyper inflation, destroy its power infrastructure, and starve to death. She promotes policy that would kill millions and calls herself the moral one. And she'd call me racist because I'd ask how she plans to pay for it.

This plan is, as I've said before, a dumpster fire. It is not a conversation starter, it is a civilization destroyer. I am perfectly fine with some random individual having such dumb ideas, but that the entire cast of democratic candidates has signed on makes it crystal clear they've lost sight of reality and no longer care about the actual future of this nation.

Or the environment, for that matter, because as I've said no one who actually wanted to solve problems would suggest this drivel.
Yeah I don't agree with you much at all other than small things like losing airlines crippling the economy, or the maximum potential cost of the resolution being unaffordable (the bills would be more realistic and practical versus the ideal plan).

But on the point of China, India and other polluting nations that's what Paris agreements would be for, and because they may not make strides, doesn't mean that we don't have to try harder.

As said a bit ago the gov should give incentives to kickstart the private industry more, and that's likely what actual bills would do. Perhaps not for airline technology, or high speed rail, but for infrastructure hell yeah. Also there's a good chance of there being a nuclear bill somewhere removing some red tape, despite what the resolution says.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
Yeah I don't agree with you much at all other than small things like losing airlines crippling the economy, or the maximum potential cost of the resolution being unaffordable (the bills would be more realistic and practical versus the ideal plan).

But on the point of China, India and other polluting nations that's what Paris agreements would be for, and because they may not make strides, doesn't mean that we don't have to try harder.

As said a bit ago the gov should give incentives to kickstart the private industry more, and that's likely what actual bills would do. Perhaps not for airline technology, or high speed rail, but for infrastructure hell yeah. Also there's a good chance of there being a nuclear bill somewhere removing some red tape, despite what the resolution says.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-...missions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
How would it be any different to this one?
There outta be a way, but I think China is shaping up by themselves. Meaning that they'll still have the most impact but they will make more strides than we do because they made it more profitable (and never do enough like everyone else).

But to tell you the truth I think we're screwed. We will hit the bad metrics like 5 celcius warming, and hopefully it won't be as bad as we predict. But what I think is different than what I'll support or advocate.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
9,144
119
925
There outta be a way, but I think China is shaping up by themselves. Meaning that they'll still have the most impact but they will make more strides than we do because they made it more profitable (and never do enough like everyone else).

But to tell you the truth I think we're screwed. We will hit the bad metrics like 5 celcius warming, and hopefully it won't be as bad as we predict. But what I think is different than what I'll support or advocate.
As of now, this is completely backwards. The US is likely to be the only major nation to hit it's Kyoto and Paris goals. Germany and Japan have no chance unless they bring nuclear power back online in a major way. France ignited an entire nationwide protest movement by attempting to do so, and most nations have barely attempted to change anything.

Meanwhile in the US we developed a whole suite of advanced technologies that have given us vast quantities of cheap natural gas that has basically removes coal from the economy, without any real government support and a lot of government opposition. I don't think fracking is the kind of thing AOC and the GNDers would get behind though.

As far as the long term picture goes, I don't think it's as dire as you predict. For one we know how we can do climate engineering to avoid the worst case scenario if we have to. The economics of solar power and carbon capture are improving at a rate such that we only really need to manage a relatively small transition period(longer than 10 years though :p). Geo-engineering and climate engineering are going to have to be part of the solution though, it simply isn't viable to go to a completely hydrocarbon free world economy, certainly not in the kind of time frame that would be needed to actually completely stop climate change.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
Yeah I don't agree with you much at all other than small things like losing airlines crippling the economy, or the maximum potential cost of the resolution being unaffordable (the bills would be more realistic and practical versus the ideal plan).
Well, as long as we agree the resolution would be unaffordable and would cripple the economy and "small things" like that.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
Well, as long as we agree the resolution would be unaffordable and would cripple the economy and "small things" like that.
It doesn't matter until we have some legislation.

As far as the long term picture goes, I don't think it's as dire as you predict. For one we know how we can do climate engineering to avoid the worst case scenario if we have to. The economics of solar power and carbon capture are improving at a rate such that we only really need to manage a relatively small transition period(longer than 10 years though :p). Geo-engineering and climate engineering are going to have to be part of the solution though, it simply isn't viable to go to a completely hydrocarbon free world economy, certainly not in the kind of time frame that would be needed to actually completely stop climate change.
While there's no way around reducing emissions, I think it has always been treated as a multi-pronged approach. We invest well into climate engineering.
 
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Check the previous page. it's from her faq.

Um... here. I'll quote it

-----------

Hell, don't take my word for it.
Her own document reads:

"The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient."

Darn, right?

But wait,there's more.

"Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time."

yes, you're reading that right . By her own words even if the entire resources of all the billionaires and companies were forced to stop making all the products they currently make and dedicated themselves entirely to her plan... that's still not enough. Those are her words.

So how does she suggest paying for it? Print money [aka hyper inflation, devaluing the dollar, destroying our economy]

But even that isn't enough.

Because "the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver."


There it is in plain text. Even if every billionaire and Company dedicate themselves to her plan 100% , it's not enough. The government must be in control of these resources in order for it to work. And not just the rich, and not just companies. "Every actor." That's your resources.

That's a direct call for state communism.


-----'

Unless you call the state taking over everything and becoming the "primary driver" of economic and resource expenditure something else?
In other words, it's not a "literal" takeover of industry and assets because that's not what it says. If it were, it would literally say that. You're inferring a level of nefariousness that isn't in the actual text. The threat of Communism being implemented by Democrats is living rent free in your head, much like how "Trump is Hitler" is living rent free in many liberals' heads.

The passage you quoted merely states that we can't leave this entirely up to the private sector. The solution requires cooperation from both private and public sectors, with the government leading the way.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
8,912
228
1,585
Memphis
This is the kind of insane, utterly delusional and detached from reality thinking that gets people killed in large numbers. I don't know why I'm in the least surprised as this is quite common among socialists and she's a self acknowledged socialist so this should have been expected.
Niall Ferguson put it like this talking about the Green New Deal:

This is what you get when you recruit your legislators more or less directly from college. For this is the language of countless student union resolutions, freighted with the pious verbiage of today’s “intersectionality”, oblivious to the echoes of the totalitarian regimes of the past. And yet this document has been endorsed by (thus far) five of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020.
 
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
You've just written multiple paragraphs based on your deflection, prior to that statement.

You don't see too good.
And you've demonstrated multiple times that you don't get what we're talking about. Just because you dont understand doesn't mean I'm deflecting. It means you don't understand.

#learn2coderead
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,968
2,871
530
And you've demonstrated multiple times that you don't get what we're talking about. Just because you dont understand doesn't mean I'm deflecting. It means you don't understand.

#learn2coderead
I get what you're talking about. But the more you try to throw snark and weak jabs to add more distance to your hypocrisy and assumptions of others, the more you demonstrate the accuracy of my observation.

It's a wonderful catch-22 you've put yourself into.
 
Likes: Rentahamster
Apr 15, 2018
1,885
2,063
230
In other words, it's not a "literal" takeover of industry and assets because that's not what it says. If it were, it would literally say that. You're inferring a level of nefariousness that isn't in the actual text. The threat of Communism being implemented by Democrats is living rent free in your head, much like how "Trump is Hitler" is living rent free in many liberals' heads.

The passage you quoted merely states that we can't leave this entirely up to the private sector. The solution requires cooperation from both private and public sectors, with the government leading the way.
Wow, this is a worst excuse that Aurelian's pathetic defense for Antifa.

"She doesn't out right call for the absolution of the free market and the exhumation of Lenin's body. It totally isn't real communism guys.

It just sounds, looks and reads exactly like it."
 
Likes: autoduelist
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Wow, this is a worst excuse that Aurelian's pathetic defense for Antifa.

"She doesn't out right call for the absolution of the free market and the exhumation of Lenin's body. It totally isn't real communism guys.

It just sounds, looks and reads exactly like it."
So you're going with the dog whistle theory, then? I guess that's a thing.
 
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
I get what you're talking about.
I'm not convinced you do. Care to paraphrase what I'm talking about just so that we're on the same page?
But the more you try to throw snark and weak jabs to add more distance to your hypocrisy and assumptions of others, the more you demonstrate the accuracy of my observation.
Please point out the hypocrisy and assumptions of others that you're imagining.
 
Feb 25, 2017
280
265
210
I'm not convinced you do. Care to paraphrase what I'm talking about just so that we're on the same page?

Please point out the hypocrisy and assumptions of others that you're imagining.
You've got multiple users calling out your hypocrisy and inconsistency, even by users who normally don't engage in such petty back and forth.

You've been defending yourself more than discussing the topic at hand.

There's a difference between being right and being righteous. You lack the self awareness to see that many posters are not arguing with you because you are right, but because you are doubling down on being righteous.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,968
2,871
530
I pointed it out in my first comment. You quoted it and replied to it 2 minutes after it was posted and started your (ongoing) course of deflection.
Odd that you would read and react to it and now claim not to see it. Let's add that onto the pile of hypocritical behaviour.
Double and tripling down on deflection and amazingly not being convinced of your display of fallibility is spectacularly unremarkable.

I would suggest you try something other than deflection and snark.
Your attempts to drag me into the path of deflection that is the very fallacy receiving critique is either exceptionally bold, or exceptionally dumb.
If you are yearning for another faux-'gotcha' then you're in for disappointment.

Please stop quoting me and later acting like I owe it to you to point out the thing you now claim you're unable to see. It's farcical.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
In other words, it's not a "literal" takeover of industry and assets because that's not what it says. If it were, it would literally say that. You're inferring a level of nefariousness that isn't in the actual text. The threat of Communism being implemented by Democrats is living rent free in your head, much like how "Trump is Hitler" is living rent free in many liberals' heads.

The passage you quoted merely states that we can't leave this entirely up to the private sector. The solution requires cooperation from both private and public sectors, with the government leading the way.
No, its saying even if all the billionaires and companies were fully willing to aim all of their wealth and resources at this proposal, it wouldn't be enough.

The the government will need to be the primary driver. She is literally saying even if all of those people agreed with her, she still needs more control.

If we decide to build a tree fort, and I tell you that no matter how much money you have, or how good your intentions or plans are, it will be impossible unless I make all financial and policy decisions, oh, and by the way, hand over your wallet, then who is in control?

When you take this into consideration with her professed political stances, her card carrying memberships of certain groups, her plain language statements about taxation, wealth,corporations, billionaires, and such over the past months, then yes, I'm going to go out on limb and state she is talking about govt takeover of industry.

Because that's exactly what she describes. It certainly isnt describing capitalism.

Edited to add: and she certainly wouldn't hand control back after ten years. She would either destroy the country with that terrible plan, or, point to any small successes as reasons they need to keep control. This is authoritarian. And a shockingly stupid, unworkable, and unaffordable plan on top of that.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2018
1,423
945
230
This is the type of proposal that will get people ousted from congress. It is nothing short of a communist manifesto hidden in politically correct word salads that all the kids need to eat to wear skinny jeans. My tin foil hat is telling me from the future that AOC is being setup by her party to be taken outback and put down. She'll never see it coming because of this non-binding signatures! Those are nothing but short term investments.
 
May 17, 2012
5,231
1,050
455
Canada
I want to bring attention to this because nobody really touched on it. It is hilarious that they actually attempted to gaslight conservatives questioning the more ludicrous parts of the FAQ by claiming it was a fake document. They took the document down on their own webpage but you can find cached versions of it and it was real and contained all of the things people found loony. To then make fun of people for pushing fake news by reporting on their actual embarrassing document that they found so embarrassing that they took down it is grade A cowfarts.