It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

@AOC Claims Crazy Green New Deal Document FROM HER OWN WEBSITE Is a Fake

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This is going full circle here. I've made posts acknowledging everything there is to know about this situation. at this point it's beating a dead horse. The facts are this, someone posted a draft of a FAQ, which is riddled with mistakes and grammar mistakes. Once people saw the 'unwilling to work' and shutting down nuclear power, people started to question and point out the obvious, it's not a true representation of the actual bill proposed. It was taken down.

Then people started slapping their tin foil hats on and claiming they changed it based off being called out. Hmmm really? Lets put some sense into this, why would they post a FAQ that didn't even produce anything remotely precise to the actual bill? It means no-one proof read it, looked over it, no - one sent it to AOC, or even a lawyer to look over.

There's two possible reasons for this, either someone posted the wrong document, or they were somehow testing the waters to see a public reaction. But given how fast it was taken down, I'm going to go with it was a mistake.




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
This is going full circle here. I've made posts acknowledging everything there is to know about this situation. at this point it's beating a dead horse. The facts are this, someone posted a draft of a FAQ, which is riddled with mistakes and grammar mistakes. Once people saw the 'unwilling to work' and shutting down nuclear power, people started to question and point out the obvious, it's not a true representation of the actual bill proposed. It was taken down.

Then people started slapping their tin foil hats on and claiming they changed it based off being called out. Hmmm really? Lets put some sense into this, why would they post a FAQ that didn't even produce anything remotely precise to the actual bill? It means no-one proof read it, looked over it, no - one sent it to AOC, or even a lawyer to look over.

There's two possible reasons for this, either someone posted the wrong document, or they were somehow testing the waters to see a public reaction. But given how fast it was taken down, I'm going to go with it was a mistake.



Repeating the same post multiple times does not make you point any more than the first time.


Her staff is either incompetent, including her chief of staff, or she and her staff discussed that aspect since it WAS written down in a document. Also, she is not a leader because her first inclination was to throw her staff under the bus and not take responsibility for her organization.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: 3n19m470

It's the same old story here in these Democrat hate threads. Someone points out the truth, and it's an attack on the OP! Someone attempts to have an opinion on the matter; You're wrong get out commie!

Now things have settled a bit and I'm not getting flooded with the same stuff over and over pointing me to the same FAQ document, with no one actually bothering to find the actual BILL The FAQ was never even found to be published by anyone in particular, the original source is fake news in that regard. Someone in AOCs staff clearly goofed and published some poorly written draft document that doesn't even match the actual proposal that was made up BEFORE the FAQs even was published. The FAQs talks about taking cars off the road and getting rid of nuclear power, who ever wrote that particular FAQs didn't even seem to read the bill.

So yea, the OP is literally nothing, it's a source based off partisan hatred. Someone made a mistake and it's now gotten blown out of proportion. I wonder why...


The reason you were getting flooded with the same stuff pointing you to the same FAQ might have been...because that was the actual topic of the thread. You link to the bill here, great-- but the thread topic wasn't the bill. It was the FAQ,-- the FAQ which was posted on her site and thus blessed with her seal of approval, which first said one thing then was amended to say something else, and which she and her handlers then tried to shift responsibility for to the republicans. THAT was the topic, not the actual bill.

You say that's a "nothingburger" because whoever wrote the FAQ "didn't even appear to read the bill." My response to that is:

Does that seriously NOT BOTHER YOU??? I mean, this FAQ is supposed to be written for the average person, to explain what's actually in the bill in layman's terms. But you say it bears no resemblance to the bill itself, and you think that's ok? It's irrelevant? Why?



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That's how you feel. I made my points. This is going no where. Facts are facts, I don't work for her, I'm not part of her team, nor am I here to push her agenda, but somewhere along the lines misinformation got out.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Yea, and? It's not up there anymore, no-one was defending those FAQs, they were defending how they got there, which no one seems to even know why.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Since it was on her site, it was her responsibility to ensure that they (the FAQs) were correct. Saying otherwise is like saying the Mayo Clinic isn't responsible for invalid medical advice on their site because their director or top doctor doesn't write the content him/herself.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Krakatoa

That's how you feel. I made my points. This is going no where. Facts are facts, I don't work for her, I'm not part of her team, nor am I here to push her agenda, but somewhere along the lines misinformation got out.


The line being in the draft document is not "how I feel", that it was there IS a fact.

I wonder why was it even written down on that list at all unless it was discussed at some point as part of her plans.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: riiver

Yea, and? It's not up there anymore, no-one was defending those FAQs, they were defending how they got there, which no one seems to even know why.


Correct, and what was their initial response? To blame others. Not to stand up and say something to the effect of,

"The information posted there was incorrect. We are investigating the process that led to it being posted. However, I (AOC) take responsibility for my staff and will work with them to avoid this type of situation in the future. "



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Nvm.
edit on 10-2-2019 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Exactly. That makes the person look like a responsible leader.

I've said and obviously you and probably others see this. It seems to be an idea that has been forgotten by many our leaders.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Uh no, the only mention of it being republicans was to Tucker a jackass loud mouth who loves to stir the pot and feed the flames gas to push anti dem rhetoric. He got sarcasm right back and his loyal minion base freaked out.

AOC came out and said something happened, and it was fixed, and that there were fake documents out there. She made a tweet loud and clear. Her tweet. people religiously follow Trump on twitter and take it as gods word. Other politicians use twitter to you know.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Looks like the firestorm was in fact started by her and her "people"

Could have been a "strategy" to roll attention. Clever. 🤓



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Could have been. Its politics, this is what politicians do.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I highly doubt that was posted by mistake. There's been a lot of triggering for the right-wingers to get up in arms lately; a couple weeks back with removing "so help me God" from the oath, then the abortion stuff in VA, now this. I honestly believe it's done to rile you guys up more than anything.

That said, at least they want to clearly define it now and openly express the way the welfare system has been run for years. My mother and every other welfare leech she associated with when I grew up have all been fully able to work, they're just f*cking lazy and know they get a free ride as long as they're willing to live in sh!thole apartments. Most don't live at poverty level when they're boyfriends are taking in a regular paycheck. Yes, I know there are many on welfare that need it, but I saw WAY too much abuse of a system not kept in check. Honestly, I won't be satisfied with that system unless they were doing every possible thing to ensure it wasn't being abused. They'd be able to give the people who need it enough of a cushion to get off of it if they weren't spending so much on those who don't need it.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 05:13 AM
link   
What is being proposed will exist somewhere between indentured servitude, serfdom, and socialism.

There are lots of bad things out there and my list was longer.

a reply to: strongfp


edit on 12-2-2019 by Rob808 because: Bad spellings




top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join