Green New Deal

[_subgenius]

talk about scrubbed

[_subgenius]

which you will need to see archives becsuse it has since OP been edited due to subsequent embarassment.

Aha. Now you’re catching up.

So, your hair fire was all about a typo. Cool.

wow, you're dumb...and unable to operate Google...cool.

[_EAllusion]

I had to search elsewhere to find something that matched it. So far, only a FAQ release. That’s why I’m wondering if your hair fire is all about a typo.

Otherwise, can you point to where this phrase shows up in the GP or GND official pages?

The link goes to the Green Party's website. It does not contain the quote he is referencing even though he had that quote in italics right underneath. That quote is not sourced, but does show up in a National Review article verbatim, which is his likely source either directly or because he is quoting something that quoted it. Further, he's appears to be equivocating the Green Party's Green New Deal proposals with the Green New Deal supported by a coalition of Democrats in the House.

It is indeed tough to find this claim being made by an original source outside of what may easily be a typo in a FAQ. It appears what Sub did was read the National Review article, assume it was true without any follow-up investigation, and think he could support it with a simple link to a "Green New Deal" website, not realizing that there are more than one Green New Deal proposals that have a professional gloss on their web design.

One would think a person armed with good arguments wouldn't need to reach to such transparent dishonesty, but there you have it.

[_subgenius]

GREEN DEAL writes:
"unable or unwilling to work.”
ADULTS:
wha?!?!?
GREEN DEAL:
no, no, no..its "willing and able to work"
CANPAKES:
Oh, that's clearly a typo...i myself often type "unable or unwilling " when thinking "willing and able"...yep, totescommon and totes reasonable that this typo got overlooked by multiple proofreaders of "Pillar 1"...just an indicator of real smart people with real smart solutions.

[_subgenius]

One would think a person armed with good arguments wouldn't need to reach to such transparent dishonesty, but there you have it.

First a typo, now dishonesty, whats next? a conspiracy?
Does your browser block search engine access?

[_EAllusion]

apart from just about all the major news outlets these past few days, try something refreshing and new...like checking the link in the OP.

which you will need to see archives becsuse it has since OP been edited due to subsequent embarassment.

Here is the proposed "Green New Deal"

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/o ... 20Deal.pdf

Can you please quote the sections that involve universal basic income for those unwilling to work?

UBI is something I'm quite supportive of as is a wing within libertarian thought. It's become increasingly common to see it supported by economists all over the political spectrum. I'd be excited to see UBI starting to hit legislation. Where is it located here? It is amusing that the very thought of it is something you appear to never have heard of and have immediately dismissed as a weird leftist fantasy.

The actual sketch of a proposal seems long on "New Deal" and short on "Green." It also doesn't seem to reference UBI at all, but perhaps I missed it.

[_subgenius]

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'

[_subgenius]

put on your tin foil hat on page 1

[_canpakes]

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'

Yes, that’s the FAQ that I’m referring to upstream.

This language isn’t on the actual GP or GND pages.

Typo? Considering the obvious contradiction on the official pages?

Hair fire much?

[_canpakes]

put on your tin foil hat on page 1

Why would we deny you your fashionable head gear?

Maybe it’ll keep the flames down a bit.