BQ_90 said:

---

Adam Ag 98 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Zem said:

---

I'm not sure I buy this info. I loathe aoc, her idiotic existence in politics, and the morons that follow her. Based on her life decisions prior to politics this score wouldn't surprise me. But this guy offers no proof he's actually seen her credit score.

But did it start a conversation

---

---

---

---

As has been pointed out in other AOC threads, there is plenty of idiocy without making up stories. This has been debunked numerous times.

Don't sleep on anybody!

Her stupidity is funny but hard to believe.

I like how lefty Snopes calls things false without actually proving them false. They have no idea what her credit score is but called the 430 false.

Not sure the point since I was being sarcastic. She already left out part of the testimony she didn't like.

Plus she needs to realize the people don't work for her. She's drunk with power she doesn't have

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I like how lefty Snopes calls things false without actually proving them false. They have no idea what her credit score is but called the 430 false.

---

If I were a betting man, I would bet it's closer to 430 than 700.

STAFF, can we get an eye roll emoji please?

Quote:

---

When working people don't live within their means, their credit rating is *****

---

FIFAOC

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

Prognightmare said:

---

STAFF, can we get an eye roll emoji please?

---

My gosh, just because you live paycheck to paycheck, it doesn't mean you should have a s***ty credit score. Your credit score whether high or low, is a way for banks to determine credit worthiness. I really can't stand ignorant people.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

STAFF, can we get an eye roll emoji please?

---

My gosh, just because you live paycheck to paycheck, it doesn't mean you should have a s***ty credit score. Your credit score whether high or low, is a way for banks to determine credit worthiness. I really can't stand ignorant people.

---

My wife and I are basically paycheck to paycheck. We are building a new house, and when pre-qualifying, our score was told to be over 800.

Paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean bad credit, you vacuous, worthless peon.

(AOC, not you Melvin)

I know you didn't mean me, I honestly can't believe people are this stupid. I do understand that people do have issues arise that are beyond their control that can have a negative impact on their credit over time. However in the instance above, this guy apparently has a spending problem.

So is she admitting a FAQ was uploaded and then taken down? Why don't they just re-upload it so we know which ones were fake drafts.

Please tell me the way back machine catalogued this FAQ...

Here is the website archive link:


https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

People should be tweeting this back at her Everytime she tries to say this was doctored by Republicans.

That write up removed from her website shows such a lack of basic understanding of how the economy and U.S. relative contributions to global carbon emissions it is amazing. First, in order to do half of what she is suggesting in 10 years we'd need to gut environmental laws or waive them for those projects. I'm sure the environment NIMBYs would love that. Second, even if we lived in the land of unicorns and all that was possible, it would have a very low (like <1-2%) impact on the project increase in carbon emissions due to projected increases in India, China, and several other developing countries.

Hard to believe she was able to get elected, and that more senior dems couldn't reign her in before she showed her ignorance.

Here she is retweeting Talcum X today who has even less integrity than AOC herself.

It's also amazing that her top advisor goes on Carlson Tucker's show and tells lie after lie about the plan she released, she then retweets a guy from Media Matters claiming that her advisor wrecked Tucker, and then lied herself by saying there are "doctored" documents when the original file from her page is still archived and it was up for several hours.

She's a real piece of....work.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

For years I have demonstrated the inability to live within my own means. I have racked up thousands of dollars of unsecured debt which I don't always pay back on time.

Why are private credit score companies oppressing me with the facts of my own reality?

tamc91 said:

---

That write up removed from her website shows such a lack of basic understanding of how the economy and U.S. relative contributions to global carbon emissions it is amazing. First, in order to do half of what she is suggesting in 10 years we'd need to gut environmental laws or waive them for those projects. I'm sure the environment NIMBYs would love that. Second, even if we lived in the land of unicorns and all that was possible, it would have a very low (like <1-2%) impact on the project increase in carbon emissions due to projected increases in India, China, and several other developing countries.

Hard to believe she was able to get elected, and that more senior dems couldn't reign her in before she showed her ignorance.

---

Also, what are we going to do with the millions and millions of "obsolete" autos and machinery when we run everything on batteries? Don't think Cuba has room for them, better to ship them over to India, China, etc and at least get some pennies on the dollar. The lack of forethought in those "plans" is astounding.

You will see autos 5-deep being pulled South on 35.

Autos for everyone in South and Central America. They are going to need them for the prosperity going their way...

She makes up more slogans in a day than a child. WTF is 'predatory financial actor'?

'Tax misogyny' was another AOC term. Her handlers are feeding her LOTS of BS.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

She has an ECONOMICS degree. Wrap your head around that one.

---

Isn't that what you do when you can do any math besides whole number addition and subtraction?

Oops! Walking back like a pro. Evidence can make that happen.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-adviser-admits-he-falsely-claimed-green-new-deal-didnt-promise-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work

"A top adviser to New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work" -- but not before he went viral in progressive circles for claiming the exact opposite, repeatedly, in an interview with Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, who counsels Ocasio-Cortez on environmental initiatives, challenged host Tucker Carlson when he quoted from an outline and list of "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) that had been posted on Ocasio-Cortez's official website. The FAQ was also shared with NPR.

The FAQ stated that the program will provide "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," and also noted, "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."

The FAQ, which is still available on NPR's website, additionally stated, "This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and timeline." In another section, the FAQ stated that it had set a goal of net-zero, rather than zero, national emissions in 10 years "because we aren't sure that we'll be able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."

C'mon guys... She's just trying to start a conversation.

We aren't supposed to take the GND seriously. It's just to get the ideas flowing.


ETA: I actually think this is the real truth here.
First lay out a bunch of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense and then come back with some slightly less stupid ideas that they can claim as "common sense" or "reasonable".

It's the same thing that happens with all issues. After a while, the crazy ideas don't seem as crazy anymore.

She is a radicalized ideologue and believes absolutely that her ideology contains all necessary knowledge, answers, and solutions and that which is outside of the ideology is false and corrupting. Ideologues with power are dangerous.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

I thought the GND was a House Resolution... not an RFI. Not an RFP.

She had Co-Sponsors.

It is right there...

http://jdems.us/gndresolution

Well.... That didn't take long. She is one and done.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

She is a radicalized ideologue and believes absolutely that her ideology contains all necessary knowledge, answers, and solutions and that which is outside of the ideology is false and corrupting. Ideologues with power are dangerous.

---

She is a Russian-style socialist.

The problem with AOC is not so different from the problem the Media had with Trump and Twitter. He just kept tweeting his message or changing the subject and the media gave him more and more attention.

At a certain point conservative minded media leaders need to figure out a way to teach their audience without demeaning anyone and then ignore the bad ideas. Attacking her for what are rightfully considered evil and stupid ideas doesn't disengage her from many in the Democrat party.

All it does is drive Democrat party supporters into her arms because she is part of the party and is under attack. And they will gladly accept her reasoning that this was just to start a discussion even though it lays out some clear policy goals.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but starting by attacking because everyone SHOULD know how horrible the idea is not helpful. There has to be some minimal way to give the person respect while eviscerating their ideas.