Ocasio-Cortez Staff In DAMAGE Control Over False Statements
Ocasio-Cortez Staff In DAMAGE Control Over False Statements after her policy adviser went on Tucker Carlson and falsely stated that their FAQS on the Green New Deal were not in fact real.Following this an activist with Media Matters spread a snipped video only showing the adviser denying the FAQ and not Carlson correction leading many to believe that the FAQ was fake. To make it worse, Ocasio-Cortez retweeted the activist propaganda.Now we have a staff member for Cortez saying "unwilling to work" WAS supposed to be included we just didn't understand what they meant. The damage control for the far left bill seems to be not working as it just makes the press on the issue worse.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the wake of the Green New Deal, it would seem that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff are in full-on damage control.
A controversy erupted when one of her policy advisors went on Tucker Carlson's show and incorrectly stated that the FAQ they released didn't exist and was actually trolls, because apparently he was referring to some other document.
Now we can see they're kind of backpedaling back and forth, and I have to assume I think they're kind of lying, and I think they did publish this on purpose, but because of the backlash, because of the embarrassment, they've started walking things back.
But now, one of the staff members for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, Now before we get started, I just want to say, I didn't really want to do a follow-up on this, but one of my tweets is getting a ton of traction, and I want to make sure I clarify for the record, Exactly what is going on.
And also don't forget to follow me on Mines at minds.com slash Timcast where we are building out the new digital newsroom for Subverse.
And if you want to support these videos, you can simply share them and help spread the message.
First from Business Insider.
Ocasio-Cortez and team attempt damage control after a fumbled Green New Deal rollout that included a line about paying Americans, quote, unwilling to work.
A line on Cortez's website supporting economic security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work triggered backlash this week and prompted mixed messages from her team about where that line came from and whether it was ever intended to be part of the landmark Green New Deal policy package.
The controversy has given fodder to critics of the Green New Deal legislation, which was unveiled Thursday.
Though the actual Green New Deal legislation, introduced to the House of Representatives, contains no mention of guaranteeing economic security to those unwilling to work, the phrase was included on Cortez's website in a frequently asked questions page that has since been removed from the site.
The page was also sent to reporters, including NPR, which published the document, and the Washington Post.
This tweet began to make its rounds, which...
kind of exacerbated the problem.
Jeff Stein of the Washington Post said, incredibly strange dynamic right now.
A zillion outlets have run with the Green New Deal equals mystery FAQ sheet,
which includes things like money for those unwilling to work.
But that's not in the plan the Senator signed off on.
Now, Cortez is retweeting her advisor telling Fox, the sheet is itself, not theirs.
He continued, it certainly looks as if the documents below came from AOC's office.
AOC advisor and clip retweeted by Cortez to Fox, you're referring to some, I think doctored document
Someone other than us has been circulating.
My response to this got nearly 2,500 retweets.
And I want to make sure we get all of the facts on the record and break down what's
going on.
I said, this is getting scary.
AOC and others are straight gaslighting people.
NPR still has the FAQ published.
CNBC reported the same.
The web archive from her website still exists.
At the time, the information we had was that her policy advisor on Tucker Carlson repeatedly said it was a forged document and that she had tweeted about it.
She then retweeted a clip from activist organization Media Matters for America where they said, look what happens when Tucker is pushed out of his conservative bubble and a policy advisor for AOC debunks all of his conservative lies.
But this was a short clip and it was propaganda.
It wasn't the truth.
On the show, Tucker Carlson then went on to correct her policy advisor saying, I'm getting information in my ear, it is on your website, it is true.
But her policy advisor refused to believe it.
And yesterday, the Daily Wire published a story about this.
They said, Ocasio-Cortez advisor caught making false statements about documents they published.
Now, it is true he did make false statements.
He went on later to clarify he was mistaken and was referring to something else.
First, they show this tweet, which was pushed out by Cortez herself.
It says, watch what happens when Tucker Carlson steps out of the conservative bubble and brings
on an AOC policy advisor who debunks all the conservative media lies straight to his face.
Spoiler, it doesn't go great for Tucker. However, it would seem that her policy advisor was
referring to this tweet where Cortez was criticizing Mark Dice and Jack Posobiec for
satirizing her Green New Deal with an obviously fake document that talks about recycling urine.
She said, when your Green New Deal legislation is so strong, the GOP has to resort to circulating
false versions, but the real one, that 70 House co-sponsors on day one, and all Dem
presidential candidates sign on anyway.
The Daily Caller also covered the story and added at the end, Hockett conceded that he
was wrong in an email to the Daily Caller News Foundation on Saturday.
It appears there was more than one document being discussed yesterday, only one of which
I had heard about with any definiteness, by last evening after a long day of media appearances,
namely, the one referred to by Congresswoman in her tweet.
I regret that we seem unknowingly to have ended up speaking about different documents for a minute during our longer and otherwise on the same page conversation last night.
Cortez responded to Jeff Stein of the Washington Post on Twitter by saying, There are multiple doctored Green New Deal resolutions and facts floating around.
There was also a draft version that got uploaded, taken down.
There's also draft versions floating out there.
Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, HRES 109.
Sycott Chakrabarty, who worked with Cortez, also tweeted an explanation saying, Regarding all the errant FAQ, TLDR is read the resolution to see what people actually signed on to.
We did this in collaboration with a bunch of groups and offices over the course of last month.
As a part of that process, there were multiple iterations, brainstorming docs, FAQs, etc.
that we shared.
Some of these early drafts got leaked.
There separately is a doctored FAQ floating around, and an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn't represent the Green New Deal resolution got published to the website by mistake.
Idea was to wait for launch, monitor questions, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing.
Mistakes happen when doing time launches like this coordinating multiple groups and collaborators.
It's hard to have both a transparent and open process with many stakeholders while keeping all info locked down, but what's in the resolution is the green new deal.
So essentially, it wasn't apparently an attempt at actual gaslighting.
And the issue we're seeing is they claim they mistakenly published the FAQ to their website, they mistakenly published another PDFed version of this and sent it to various news organizations, and they shouldn't have done that because it was an early version of the draft.
Personally, I don't think that's what's happening and I think they're doing damage control and trying to walk things back.
Now that does kind of make sense, the resolution and the FAQ are a bit different, But barely.
The only real difference is that the resolution uses more legal language, it looks like a bill, and it doesn't mention unwillingness to work, but it does call for racial equity and gender pay equity and things of that nature, so they're still basically the same thing.
But here's where it gets more interesting.
Well, I don't want to say necessarily that I can definitively prove they were gaslighting.
At the time, with Ocasio-Cortez retweeting that statement from her policy advisor, her policy advisor going on TV and saying, nope, you're wrong, it's a fake document, it really did seem like they were trying to confuse people and gaslight people.
Now, I can't say it definitively, because at this point, they've given reason to believe it may not be true, though, in my personal opinion, I do think they are lying and trying to play damage control.
But here's the thing.
Saikat Chakrabarti has actually come out and said, no, yeah, we're actually talking about these things.
The reality is, the FAQ is something they did plan, they did talk about, they do believe, but was accidentally published.
So, it's not like the document shows information that is factually incorrect.
They do believe these things.
And Saikat has actually clarified, they do, they do believe this!
He tweeted yesterday night saying, He tweeted this in response to CNBC saying that the Green New Deal offers economic security for those unwilling to work.
So it's not that the FAQ was wrong.
to building the energy infrastructure of this country, but who may not be willing to switch
this late in his career. He tweeted this in response to CNBC saying that the Green New
Deal offers economic security for those unwilling to work.
So it's not that the FAQ was wrong.
No, apparently the frequently asked questions was real.
They actually are thinking about providing economic security to those who are unwilling to work.
And he clarified what he meant was people who lose their jobs when their jobs become obsolete.
But I kind of find that hard to believe because they could just say economic security to people who lose their jobs due to technological advancement, not those unwilling to work.
There's a bit of a difference there.
But it sounds like he's admitting they really are having those conversations.
The FAQ isn't wrong.
If it's not wrong, why did they take it down?
Why didn't they just change that one sentence?
In my opinion, it's because that was something they believe, it is something they talk about, and they're embarrassed by it.
It made them look bad.
And other politicians in the Democratic Party were calling them out.
Beyond just the unwillingness to work, he also addressed The Economist when they said that the Green New Deal bundles together the issues of climate change and economic inequality.
He said, we've been saying since day one that a Green New Deal is a path to jobs and justice
through a national mobilization of our economy to tackle climate change.
It's a huge opportunity to create wealth and shared prosperity.
Yes, the Green New Deal is more about equality and justice.
But hold on.
Equality is the wrong word.
What they actually say is equity, and there's a big difference.
Equity does not mean equality.
In fact, equity brings about the opposite of equality.
This image is often shown to people to explain what equality and equity is.
When you look at equity, you can see that three people are now all able to see a baseball game.
But when it comes to equality, and people are given the same resources, not everyone has a chance to watch the baseball game.
This is very easy to understand when you can see it's about height.
But when it's about skin color or gender or other things that aren't quantifiable, equity means the opposite of equality.
It means we will arbitrarily decide based on our personal opinions or ideology to allocate resources to people through means that are not quantifiable.
In this image, it makes sense.
In reality, it actually doesn't.
And this is what their bill is calling for.
Equity, not equality.
That means they believe some people should get more money than others based off of their perception and their ideology, not what is quantifiable.
So the most important conclusions we have here is that it's very likely, on Tucker Carlson, that this policy advisor was just ill-informed.
But that's important, too.
Why would a policy advisor for Cortez go on national television without knowing what was in their own published Frequently Asked Questions, not only on her website, but in multiple PDFs sent out to various news organizations?
You'd think that kind of preparation and knowledge would be very important.
We can also see that Sycott has mentioned they were talking about paying people unwilling to work.
Why didn't her policy advisor know about that?
This is very strange, and it would seem that somebody is lying somewhere down the line.
The Green New Deal seems like a bungled, intersectional mess, and they're in full-on damage control.
But let me know what you think in the comments below, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at Timcast, and stay tuned, I'll have more videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews, and on this channel every day at 4pm.
