Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Climate Change 'Our World War II'

"The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?"

|

Speaking at an event held yesterday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) explained why she believes younger Americans are in favor of radical action when it comes to combating climate change:

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we're like: 'The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'" Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Tanehisi Coates at an "MLK Now" event in New York.

She continued: "This is our World War II."

Ocasio-Cortez's 12-years-til-the-Apocalypse timeline is likely inspired by a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released last fall which argued that unless carbon-based fuels were completely abandoned by 2030, global temperatures would increase more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels agreed upon in the Paris Climate Agreement. That report doesn't say the world will end if temperatures increase more than that, but it does estimate damage to global GDP (more on that in a moment).

Here's an interesting fact about World War II: We did in fact pay for it directly and in all sorts of ways, including rationing of goods, near-complete federal control of the economy and resources, massive tax hikes, and the sale of war bonds.

As Peter Schiff (via Marginal Revolution) explains:

To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941. Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions.

In 1944, writes Cecil Bohannon for the Mercatus Center, government spending accounted for a record-high 55 percent of GDP.

All of which might help explain why Ocasio-Cortez consistently shies away from talking about the cost of her big-ticket plans. Discussing her calls for Medicare-for-All, forgiveness of student debt, free college for all, and a federal jobs guarantee—a package estimated to cost $40 trillion over 10 years—Ocasio-Cortez brushed aside any serious discussion of costs in a recent interview with CNN's Jake Tapper and refused to explain where the money would come from. Last fall, in an interview with Jorge Ramos, she said:

People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it and I find the question so puzzling because 'How do you pay for something that's more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?' You just pay for it."

When it comes to paying for her "Green New Deal," which would include government-financed projects to speed up and enforce the transition to renewable energy (though not nuclear) along with tag-along favorites such as a universal basic income, she is equally vague.

Ron Sachs/CNP / Polaris/Newscom

The draft text of her legislation includes a section answering the question "How will government pay for these investments?":

  • Many will say, "Massive government investment! How in the world can we pay for this?" The answer is: in the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.
  • In addition to traditional debt tools, there is also a space for the government to take an equity role in projects, as several government and government-affiliated institutions already do.

Quartz, which is sympathetic to Ocasio-Cortez's agenda, notes that "Green Party leader Jill Stein estimated that her version of the Green New Deal, which is less ambitious than the one presented by Ocasio-Cortez, would cost $700 billion to $1 trillion annually."

Ocasio-Cortez is hardly alone in not even pretending to care about paying for her favored plans. In the 21st century, both Republican and Democratic majorities have at various points hidden the costs of their spending and both parties are dedicated to endless borrowing to cover any year's expenses (call it "Government by Groupon"). Mounting debt is surely one of the factors in our generally slower-than-usual economic growth and the worst parts of the bill are still ahead of us.

If Ocasio-Cortez waves away questions of how to pay for her plans to avert the end of the world, she is also exaggerating the threat posed by the effects of climate change. Climate change is not World War II and we should resist and refute the analogy, with its strong implication not simply of massive increases in government spending and taxes but the regimentation of all aspects of day-to-day life.

As Ronald Bailey wrote last fall when the IPCC report came out, fears about the impact of sea-level rises, increases in extinctions and extreme weather events, and more have generally been overstated. So have the economic benefits of keeping global warming below 2°C:

So what, according the IPCC report, will it cost to transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar? "Global model pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C are projected to involve the annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion [in 2010 U.S. dollars] between 2016 and 2035 representing about 2.5% of the world GDP," states the report. For comparison, the International Energy Agency recently observed that "total energy investment worldwide in 2016 was just over $1.7 trillion, accounting for 2.2 percent of global GDP." Of that, only $297 billion was spent on renewable energy sources.

So how much economic damage will pursuing the IPCC's fast transition to a no-carbon energy system spare us? The report asserts that if no policies aimed specifically at reducing carbon dioxide emissions are adopted, then average global temperature is projected to rise by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in global GDP loss of 2.6 percent from what it would otherwise have been. Comparatively speaking, in the 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios, global GDP would only be reduced by 0.5 percent or 0.3 percent respectively.

Concretely, the global GDP of $80 trillion, growing at 3 percent annually, would rise to $903 trillion by 2100. A 2.6 percent reduction means that it would only be $880 trillion by 2100. A 0.3 percent decrease implies a loss of $2.7 trillion resulting in a global GDP of $900 trillion. Note that the IPCC is recommending that the world spend between now and 2035 more than $45 trillion in order to endow $2.7 trillion more in annual income on people living three generations hence. Assuming the worst case loss of 2.6 percent of GDP in world with a population of 10 billion that would mean that they would have to scrape by on an average income of just $88,000 per year (the average global GDP per capita now is $10,500.)

Bailey further notes that since the Paris accords are voluntary, it's unlikely any signatory will stand by them in the face of economic adversity. Catastrophic climate change is possible and can be hedged against without cratering the economy or refusing to name the cost of one's preferred path forward.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

248 responses to “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Climate Change 'Our World War II'

  1. Stick to dancing, Ocassional Cortex.

    1. Sand from the Bronx, like most Latinas, she’s as dumb as rocks.

    2. We all agree that she is an impressive 36 C considering her figure, right?

      1. I’m just trying to “be better to socialists”

      2. Yes, that part of the dancing video impressed. Nice to see she has two breast friends.

    3. I prefer Ocassionally-Coherent!

  2. All of which might help explain why Ocasio-Cortez consistently shies away from talking about the cost of her big-ticket plans.

    Look at The Jacket, being so polite.

    The simplest answer is the best: She’s a moron.

  3. So who does Occasional Cortex think we should nuke to end this?

    1. She’s not talking about nukes, she’s talking about the Jews. Given her exasperation with people who seem concerned only about the money this is going to cost, I’m pretty sure her reference to WWII is an anti-Semitic dog-whistle.

    2. I’m pretty sure she’s oblivious to the Pacific Theater, she’s a part of the “I never met a problem I couldn’t Nazi punch my way out of.” generation.

  4. A?C is down for Tyranny and Mutation.

    1. Leave Blue Oyster Cult out of this

      1. we’ll be able to fly.

      2. Azure Oyster Cult?

    2. I’m sure A?C’s favorite album is “On Your Feet or On Your Knees”

    3. She’s certainly making a Career of Evil.

    4. I’m sure she goes down for a variety of things. I’ll bet she’s even munched some carpet. Or with all the shaving now, maybe it’s ‘licked some laminate’?

  5. I will choose, then, to go Neville Chamberlain on this issue and appease global warming as much as possible…

  6. “Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the weather and all the odious apparatus of climate change, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall rent-seek in France, we shall rent-seek on the rising seas and oceans, we shall rent-seek with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our planet, whatever the cost may be. We shall rent-seek on the beaches, we shall rent-seek on the landing grounds, we shall rent-seek in the fields and in the streets, we shall rent-seek in the hills; we shall never surrender on this myth that has enriched us”

    – Occasional Cortex rallying nincompoops

    1. To the Freshman Congresswoman: Nuts!

        1. Speaking of AOC and nuts, I consider it almost a certainty that there are at least a few mobile phone sex videos of her. Maybe more than a few.

  7. The progressive’s siren song fascination and nostalgia for the possibility for government regimentation of society afforded by the necessities of total war is one of the uglier things about that movement. The desire to make an existential emergency a permanent feature of life so they can be the Top Men directing the response.

    Of course, the original New Deal was a spastic response to a crisis by people who did not understand what they were doing and made things worse.

    1. “The moral equivalent of war”

      1. War is immoral. So, yes.

      2. The problem is, she doesn’t realize she’s on the Axis side of this particular WWII.

    2. As someone who is a total geek about history in general and military history in particular, I don’t see what the country did during World War II as something to be emulated absent extreme circumstances. The US was faced with a total world war the stakes of which were civilization itself. In response to these circumstances, it took extreme action and did things that it would never have done otherwise and would under anything less than the extreme circumstances it faced have been monsterous.

      Progressives look back on the war and see the government effectively nationalizing the economy to make war, wildly restricting people’s freedom and ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor, drafting 12 million people into involuntary servitude and sending 250,000 of those people to their deaths and many more to grave and sometimes life changing injuries and think “damn why can’t government always do those things?”

      Part of it is that I have never met a Progressive who knew anything about history and thus can be attributed to ignorance. But not all of it can be attributed to ignorance. They really seem to believe that national enslavement for the greater cause is a good in itself and not something that needs any justification much less an extreme one.

      1. Also, the entire purpose of such a machine was to produce the ability to kill people and break stuff, which is relatively easy. The technical hard part is doing it better than the other side. The technical hard part is coming up with innovative technologies that do not offend the Left’s mercurial sensibilities and implement it across the country.

        AOC seems thinks the biggest problem with coming up with that getting the government to say “make it so”.

        1. That is the other thing about gentry Progs almost none of them have ever served in the military or been anywhere near a war. If they had, they would realize how monumentally wasteful and inefficent the military is. The reason for that is that because it is in the business of killing and being killed, the military is necessarily socialist and tribal and has to live with the inefficiencies that come with that. There is not a lot of place for individual freedom in a fighting army. Everyone has to be a part of the team and be willing to sacrifice for the greater goal. It is in many ways the closest thing to pure socialism as you will ever find. It has to be. Yes, there is initiative but it is limited to a framework, “diciplined initiative” as the Germans called it. The danger and nature of war require everyone commit to the larger cause or else face defeat and death. So all of the inefficiency and waste are just a necessary condition of war.

          Socialists never get that. They think that all of that waste can somehow be eliminated. It can’t. And worse, they think that such a system can exist outside the extreme circumstances of war without creating a police state. It can’t.

          1. I’ve worked for the military/federal government in the DoD for three decades. The only people who think the federal government can do anything it wants as long as its properly directed and funded, are people who have never worked in the trenches of government. The government is inefficient because the scope is way too large, it’s like trying to design a piece of software that can do everything, the requirements are completely unrealistic.

      2. Exactly! And that’s one of the primary reasons they are so dangerous.

      3. But if all new-age bad guys are Nazis then calling for war and nationalizing the economy is OK, right?

      4. At the start of our nation the aristocrats felt an obligation to fund the federal government, they controlled the federal government, “so why not fund it?”. As time went on, people fought with their lives for control of government. People won control, but not all. Aristocrats really started to lose their control thanks to the New Deal. In response, conservative organizations fought the New Deal. The conservatives won reductions in taxes applied to wealthy, Compromises with conservatives were made to make minimum tax rates at middle class levels to pay for the social programs that people had become accustom to. Then WWII, we rose, and used more of our middle wealth we gained from great success in this country thanks to the social programs of roads, electricity, running water, schools, and libraries. With our money we created the military industrial complex, and we created thousands of military contractors. These companies were and are still controlled by a few families with names like Prince, Devos, Lockheed, and Martin. These are the families that fund families like Clinton, Bush, and Trump, but never ones like Sanders, Warren, and Cortez. The earth is melting. There is a program called Google Scholar and it is free to use. You can go to it and search through much of the research in the known world. And you could ask, why should I trust research, and to that I say you shouldn’t, but you should read it, and judge it, against everything else you have read.

    3. At the start of our nation the aristocrats felt an obligation to fund the federal government, they controlled the federal government, “so why not fund it?”. As time went on, people fought with their lives for control of government. People won control, but not all. Aristocrats really started to lose their control thanks to the New Deal. In response, conservative organizations fought the New Deal. The conservatives won reductions in taxes applied to wealthy, Compromises with conservatives were made to make minimum tax rates at middle class levels to pay for the social programs that people had become accustom to. Then WWII, we rose, and used more of our middle wealth we gained from great success in this country thanks to the social programs of roads, electricity, running water, schools, and libraries. With our money we created the military industrial complex, and we created thousands of military contractors. These companies were and are still controlled by a few families with names like Prince, Devos, Lockheed, and Martin. These are the families that fund families like Clinton, Bush, and Trump, but never ones like Sanders, Warren, and Cortez. The earth is melting. There is a program called Google Scholar and it is free to use. You can go to it and search through much of the research in the known world. And you could ask, why should I trust research, and to that I say you shouldn’t, but you should read it, and judge it, against everything else you have read.

  8. Always keep in mind that although democratic socialists like AOC might disagree with us Koch / Reason libertarians on economic issues, they agree with us on the most important thing ? #AbolishICE.

    #LibertariansForAOC

    1. Let us also liquidate all non-Castilian Latinas.

      #LiquidateLatinas

    2. for topless AOC.

    3. ICE? You are off subject OBL; possibly deflecting. Try again, please.

      1. He won’t. OBL just can’t help himself

    4. Yes, clearly AOC wants to Abolish ICE. #AbolishInternalCombustionEngine

  9. AOC is right.
    We must fight climate change with all our hearts, minds, souls, and most importantly, all our money.
    Only then will our beloved ruling elites, like AOC, be able enjoys all the wonders and joys of our ill gotten gains.

  10. Solandra will be producing new solar technology at any moment.

    1. And always will be.

    2. Sure, once Obama gives them another $500 billion of taxpayer money.

  11. So you’re saying that AOC has a “final solution to the climate problem?”

  12. Did we give up fighting climate change when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    1. I hear Pearl Harbor bombed in Germany.

    2. Forget it. She’s rollin’.

    3. Forget it. She’s rollin’.

      1. Remember, Bluto ends up a Senator.

    4. Am I missing something here. I believe it was the Japanese who bombed pearl harbour.

      1. Watch Animal House.

  13. Does she actually think that applying that lipstick somehow makes her attractive?

    1. I keep hearing people say she is hot but I don’t see it. I think she is funny looking. She is young and thin and presumably has a good body, but I don’t find anything pretty about her. She is a butter face at best. And I don’t think that because of her politics. Hollywood is filled with women just as stupid and leftist as this broad who I would crawl over broken glass to bang. I really don’t get how anyone finds her attractive.

      1. There is a difference between hot and office hot. And there’s a monumental divide between office hot and congress hot.

        1. So like, compared to Pelosi?

          1. Please! Some of us just ate – – – – –

          2. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

      2. I really don’t get how anyone finds her attractive.

        It’s truly mind-boggling.

        1. It’s certainly a mystery to me why anyone would find a pretty, in shape, chestnut haired, dark skinned lady attractive. I’m only masturbating because of a condition I have. I have a doctor’s note.

          1. You are a sickie, sir – get some help!

          2. She is not pretty. What about her is pretty. I will give you that she is young and thin and likely has a good body. But she doens’t have a pretty feature. She has funky looking crazy eyes, her nose is too flat and her mouth is too big. She is a butter face. If you think having a decent body makes up for a funky looking face, good for you. But, don’t pretend she is pretty.

            1. don’t pretend she is pretty.

              Quit playing pretend, BUCS.

            2. Yes, she is young and thin, but that is not enough for me. It may not even be enough for sarcasmic.

              OT: What did you think of the Pats / Chiefs?

              1. Liberty Mike,

                As a Chiefs fan I am disapointed they lost but am philosophical about it. In Mahomes they have the best quaterback of his generation. Time is on their side. If you look at the game itself, the Chiefs were clearly overawed by the moment and it showed in the first half. Not a single player on the roster had ever been in a title game. The difference in experience really showed in that first half. But in the second half, after they settled down, they outscored NE 31-14. Next time they won’t be overawed.

                Even then, it really came down to the overtime coin toss. Neither defense was going to stop the other offense. So, whoever won the toss was almost certain to win the game.

                The other thing I would say is the NFL has to do something about its referees. The game was very pporly officiated, which I will get to in the next post.

              2. but that is not enough for me

                She has skin darker than milk which we all know is totally off putting for you.

                OT: What did you think of the Pats / Chiefs?

                What’s with your constant need to change the subject to sports in the middle of the conversation?

                1. She has skin darker than milk which we all know is totally off putting for you.

                  Yeah Sparky, I can’t stand darker skinned women. That explains why I have such a thing for Indian women and Latin American women. You nailed it dude.

                  1. I can’t stand darker skinned women

                    You and Libertymike are the same person? I did not see that twist coming.

                    1. Yeah Sparky, I can’t stand darker skinned women. That explains why I have such a thing for Indian women and Latin American women. You nailed it dude.

                      Did you not read the rest of the post to understand it is sarcasm? I believe that Crusty didn’t because he really is that stupid. But, you are generally not. So, are you just being your usual asshole here or do I have to spell out the sarcasm for you.

                    2. Did you not read the rest of the post to understand it is sarcasm?

                      For crying out loud, John, I got that your post was sarcasm. What you seem to have missed is that mine was addressed at Libertymike and not you.

                  2. Yeah Sparky, I can’t stand darker skinned women

                    John: forever a fool.

                    1. Crusty forever not understanding sarcasm or context.

            3. Do you want to watch my self-love process? If not, what can convince to you I find Latina women pretty? Or are you just asserting she’s not the most beautiful woman who ever lived? Kind of a hard situation for me to prove this one, John.

              1. Kind of a hard situation for me to prove this one,

                That’s because you do not find her attractive, you fucking liar.

              2. I think a lot of Latin women are hot. There is no accounting for taste. If she works for you, then she does. But, the mouth, the nose and especially her eyes I find very unattractive. Her face just doens’t have good preportions. I don’t find her pretty, though she does have some attractive features. It is not like she is Chelsea Clinton or something but she is well below what I would consider hot unless you just look at her body. Like I said, she is a butter face if there ever was one.

                1. She has a nice nose and mouth, pretty eyes as well. Dark.

                  I also noticed I really like Jewish women, and that Jenny Slate is one of my few celebrity crushes.

                  1. totally agreed. get out of my head.

                  2. and that Jenny Slate is one of my few celebrity crushes.

                    lol now we really know you’re lying. As though there are men around who could have any woman who would give her a second glance. gfto.

                    1. superhot. and funny.

                  3. I have a total thing for Semetic women of all stripes. AOC doesn’t look Semetic to me. She just looks like a homely Hispanic chick.

                    Jenny Slate is cute. I like Rachel Brosnahan a lot these days. She is not Jewish but plays a Jew on TV.

                    1. Assuming I am permitted to make sports related posts*, I agree with all of your points on the Pats / Chiefs.

                      * are you aware of any posting rule limiting comments to one issue per thread?

                      As for taste, yeah, I make no bones about my preference for tall, svelte Celtic / Gallic / Nordic / Roman / Slavic / Teutonic types. Note the word preference. Last night, watching Sports Center, I couldn’t help be mesmerized by Sage Steele. Alas, she does have the tall and the svelte thing.

                    2. Then there is the offside penalty on the interception. The refs could throw 30 flags a game for lining up in the neutral zone if they wanted to. They wisely I think generally don’t make the call unless the player is clearly accross the line of scrimage and gaining an advantage over the offensive player. On twitter this morning, there are dozens of screen shots of players from both teams lining up just slightly in the neutral zone the way the Ford was on plays where the penalty was never called.

                      So what happened was this. You have a penalty that is a slight enough of an infraction that the referees generally choose not to call it because it doesn’t effect game play and they reasonably don’t want to insert themselves into the game too much by being overly technical in their enforcement of the rules. Yet, this penalty was called in this case, where it wasn’t other times, and was called as the result of a flag being thrown not at the begining of the play but after the play was over and had resulted in what would have been a game winning interception by the Chiefs.

                    3. I would not pretend to read the minds of the referees or engage in speculative conspiracy theories. I have no idea why the referees decided to throw that flag and why they didn’t throw it until so late in the play. But, the facts are what they are and it leaves a terrible impression about the competence and integrity of NFL referees. It is one thing to not throw every possible flag. I think that is a good policy. But to follow that policy and then suddenly decide to throw a flag that is normally not thrown on a play that would have decided the game is inexcusable. Given the facts, how can you not say that the Refs were putting the fix in for the Patriots? Sure, you cannot say they were but you can’t say they were not. And since the integrity of the game is only as good as the public’s perception of its integrity, that is not good enough.

                    4. That call, the review of Edelman’s handling of the punt, and the phantom roughing the passer call, all, in my opinion, inform, in part, Patriot hate.

                      Most in this neck of the woods attribute Patriot hate to (a) Brady Derangement Syndrome; (b) Belichick Derangement Syndrome; (c) envy; or (d) irrational frustration with the Patriots sustained excellence.

                      However, some of the hate is fueled by the perception of the Patriots being the beneficiaries of calls for them and non-calls against them through the years in big spots. Examples include the Tuck rule, getting away with clutching, grabbing, holding, and interfering of the Rams receivers in SB 36, getting away with the same thing in the 2003 AFC championship game against the Colts, the holding of Lee Evans by Sterling Moore in the 2011 AFC championship game, a number of questionable calls in the 2013 AFC championship game against the Broncos (a game the Patriots did lose), and in last year’s title game against the Jaguars, there were several calls that were just horrible. One call was for interference against the Jags’ A.J. Bouye near the end of the first half and the call led to a Patriots TD. In that game, the Pats were penalized just once whereas the Jags were flagged 6 times.

                      Of course, its old news, but, the Patriots were allowed to get away with mugging the Colts receivers in that 2003 AFC championship game.

                    5. You probably recall that the Colts had blown out both the Broncos, at the RCA dome, and the Chiefs, at Arrowhead, the first two rounds of the playoffs. In both games, IIRC, the Colts put up over 40 points.

                      Then the championship game in Foxboro. I distinctly remember Marcus Pollard being held by Rodney Harrison on a third down play on the Colts first drive. No call. It went on that way all game long.

                      On the other side of the ledger, there was that notorious non-call against the Panthers on that Monday night game in Charlotte in week 11 of the 2013 season. Gronk was held by Luke Keuchly in the end-zone on a play that resulted in a Brady interception.

            4. “I will give you that she is young and thin and likely has a good body. But she doens’t have a pretty feature. She has funky looking crazy eyes, her nose is too flat and her mouth is too big. She is a butter face.”

              A double bagger, for sure.

              And in her case, plastic not paper. Makes em writhe more as the air is used up.

          3. agreed.

        2. I grew up in New York and for New York Puerto Rican girls, she is average in looks but well below average in intelligence. Of course, the New York City education system could wreck anyone’s mind.

          1. Having been to San Juan a number of times, I don’t think she could get laid in a prison down there with a fist full of pardons. Puerto Rican women, especially ones under 30, are as a group hot as hell. She doesn’t even begin to measure up from what I have seen.

            1. Been there and agreed, wholeheartedly.

          2. Let’s remember to boycott Boston College, which has given (and I do mean given) her two, count them two, degrees.
            Economics and foreign relations; subjects where she displays continuing and remarkable ignorance.

      3. From certain angles she is cute. On the other hand, she has the bat guano crazy eyes more.

        1. In her video the knockers were clearly knocking. Other than that, nothing to write home about.

  14. Alex from the Bronx is quite possibly the most illiterate, illiberal 29 year-old this side of the whacko left.

    It’s actually pretty galling as it is troubling she’s in Congress.

    1. The democrat party truly deserve her. She is to them like a spec of cubic zirconia in a vat of plastic jewels.

  15. WWII?

    How many American’s are going to die for the cause? How many people will be interned?

    If climate change is going to destroy us in 12 years. Then we need to stop using electricity and driving cars today. Is she willing to give that up?

    But I think she should look at Al Gore’s claims about NYC in 2012.

    1. During World War II, you couldn’t drive over 35 mph on any road because doing so used too much gas. Most consumer items like refidgerators and cars were completely unavailable for purchase. Even small items like tires and nylons were impossible to obtain. All food was strictly rationed. If you didn’t live on a farm where you could covertly raise your own meat, you were lucky to eat meat more than once a week. Travel was totally restricted and subject to the approval of the military. If you wanted to take the train to see grandma in Chicago ( thanks to gas rationing you sure as hell were not taking a car), you had to both have the money for a ticket and find a train that was approved for civilian travel and not being used for the military, which always got first priority. I could go on but you get the point.

      AOC looks at all that and says “yeah, gimme some of that”.

      1. Yep. All that.

        Well she’s part of the ruling class now so it might not affect her in the same was as the rest of us.

        1. They always figure the rules will never apply to them. And they generally don’t. What does apply to them is the knock at the door that comes when the government finally runs out of other people’s money and starts to blame people for its failures. Then, they always think being a loyal member of the party will save them. It never does.

      2. At the start of our nation the aristocrats felt an obligation to fund the federal government, they controlled the federal government, “so why not fund it?”. As time went on, people fought with their lives for control of government. People won control, but not all. Aristocrats really started to lose their control thanks to the New Deal. In response, conservative organizations fought the New Deal. The conservatives won reductions in taxes applied to wealthy, Compromises with conservatives were made to make minimum tax rates at middle class levels to pay for the social programs that people had become accustom to. Then WWII, we rose, and used more of our middle wealth we gained from great success in this country thanks to the social programs of roads, electricity, running water, schools, and libraries. With our money we created the military industrial complex, and we created thousands of military contractors. These companies were and are still controlled by a few families with names like Prince, Devos, Lockheed, and Martin. These are the families that fund families like Clinton, Bush, and Trump, but never ones like Sanders, Warren, and Cortez. The earth is melting. There is a program called Google Scholar and it is free to use. You can go to it and search through much of the research in the known world. And you could ask, why should I trust research, and to that I say you shouldn’t, but you should read it, and judge it, against everything else you have read.

    2. “But I think she should look at Al Gore’s claims about NYC in 2012.”

      You would think. But, in all actuality that movie is probably the biggest reason the millennials are so apocalyptic on the issue. It’s been show in schools across the world for years. It’s really kind of scary how effective propaganda can be.

    3. 12 years? Shit there’s a slight chance I could still be alive by then. You youngsters better get on this immediately. And I don’t care how you pay for it as long as you don’t fuck with my social security.

  16. She does realize her side lost?

    1. Lost the Cold War?

      No.

      She doesn’t realize her side lost.

  17. You know who else fought a World War II?

    1. France?

      1. If you call that fighting.

        1. Like taking an accordion deer hunting.

    2. Bob Dole?

    3. Tom Hanks?

  18. If and when they inflict the kinds of policies AOC is calling for, the taxpayers and voters will react so harshly that within two years of their implementation, those regulations will either be repealed or the Democrat president who refused to sign their repeal will be thrown out no more than four years later.

    There are two places in the world that have implemented the kinds of taxes AOC is calling for, one of which was Australia. The taxes there were so unpopular, the prime minister who implemented them lost her position and her party lost control of the legislature.

    The other place where these kinds of taxes have been rolled out is France. The Yellow Jacket eruption (still ongoing) began as a reaction against Macron’s attempt to implement taxes to comply with climate change agreements.

    The American people will react at least as strongly as the Australians and the French to using the coercive power of government to inflict unpopular taxes on the them in a significant enough way to make them abandon all carbon based fuels within 12 years.

    I’d like to believe the left doesn’t realize this and that they aren’t actually advocating for martial law, but I’m not sure that’s true. I’ve seen the left advocate violating people’s religious convictions and free speech rights in the name of the greater good, and saving the planet from fossil fuels gives them all the good intentions their progressive philosophy requires.

    1. If you honestly believed you were saving the planet all sorts of things become morally acceptable that otherwise would be unthinkable. Like, say for example, killing off tons of people. After all if you don’t kill them everyone dies, right?

      Occasional Cortex isn’t a threat though, she probably won’t be reelected.

      1. Most radical environmentalists are fairly honest about their desire to exterminate most of the human race, excluding them of course. Radical greens should scare you more than the worst radical Muslims. Radical Muslims want to kill and enslave everyone who is not a Muslim. The radical Greens want to kill everyone. If the Radical Muslims ever got ahold of some doomsday virus, I don’t think they would release it because it would kill too many Muslims. The radical Greens would. The whole thing is a fucking death cult.

      2. People like AOC watched Infinity Wars and decided that Thanos was right. Don’t look for creative solutions to problems, just kill a bunch of people and the problem will go away.

    2. Excellent comment, and so true.

  19. The federal government is certainly doing what an unscrupulous person would do if it thought the world was about to end – maxing out its credit card. Except there’s no legal maximum (unless you count the laws of economics).

  20. >>>People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it and I find the question so puzzling because ‘How do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?’ You just pay for it.”

    the results of promoting the mind-blowingly stupid to positions of power is truly entertaining … heart hands!

    1. To keep on her analogy of one of the most devastating wars in world history, she apparently does not realize that logistics in war is more important to success than strategy and tactics.

  21. Why is this dizzy loser getting so much media exposure?

    1. freaks out the Get Off My Lawn crowd

      1. She is the most popular and dynamic Democratic politician today. Whatever you think of her position, she deserves the attention she gets. A whole lot of people like her and think she is the future. She matters a lot more than your typical Dem congress creature.

        1. There needs to be more refutation of her position. Ignoring her, as some (not you, John) are calling for, is a way to make her a cult figure and for her to play a sympathetic and conspiratorial card.

          They are already doing so, but I fear this would make it worse. Particularly, among her young fans who already rely less on traditional media than most.

        2. would be terrifying if I hadn’t learned to not let it terrify me

        3. That may be the future. If so, it is incredibly ignorant and perhaps outright stupid.

          1. Future President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho endorses this comment.

        4. Dynamic implies something positive.

          I prefer dangerous energetic socialist.

        5. “She is the most popular and dynamic Democratic politician today”

          So does Donny get the credit or is it the rest of the Dem party poopers for Sandy’s ‘standing’ in the hearts and mind of a Dem voter?

  22. In addition to traditional debt tools, there is also a space for the government to take an equity role in projects, as several government and government-affiliated institutions already do.

    Hey pops, how about you buy me a car?

    Sorry son, can’t afford it.

    Well why don’t you, like, buy the car for yourself but let me drive it?

  23. “This is our World War II.”

    I’m confused. What does Ms. Cortez think will be accomplished by throwing Japanese-Americans into concentration camps this time around?

    1. To be fair, she’s probably not racist like Roosevelt. She’d be very racially inclusive when picking people to toss into the camps.

  24. If there were an equal and opposite reaction to AOC on the right, think how the left would howl.

    I saw that the nuns Obama shamefully attempted to force to finance their employees’ fornication are having to defend themselves in court again against blue states.

    I saw they’re going after Vice President Pence’s wife because she teaches at a private Christian school that doesn’t hire LGBTQI+ as teachers.

    The left has gone so authoritarian, it isn’t even funny, and there doesn’t seem to be anything comparable (equal and opposite reaction) on the right. Not believing in freedom of conscience or the divide between private and public life is now the center of the left. Couple that with their penchant for using the coercive power of government to attack their enemies, and I’d argue that there’s no greater threat to individual liberty than the center left anymore.

    We’ve known about the death of the honest liberal for years. If there’s anything new, it’s that things have only gotten worse. There is no libertarian strain on the left. No one to make common cause with on any issue. They’re all authoritarians now.

    1. Democrats always ask why everyone is paying so much attention to AOC. The snark is always, “she just freaks the poor Republicans out”. And that is just bullshit. She gets a lot of attention because she deserves it. AOC has a lot of followers and is a big deal. She is pretty much who the Democratic Party is today. And if that fact embarasses some people, well too bad.

      1. Yeah, Pelosi hasn’t shifted to the left. The left has shifted so much further to the left that Pelosi just seems like she’s shifted to the right–relative to her base.

        The same thing happened in California with Governor Moonbeam. He was no more to the right than he’d ever been, but the Democrat center has shifted so far to the left, it mad the guy they called “Moonbeam” seem like he’d shifted to the right.

        45 Democrat House members lined up behind AOC’s call to create a climate change action committee, but Nancy Pelosi squelched it. She knows what a loser that is!

        We can only hope that the country never finds out what AOC’s government would be like. It would look a lot like Venezuela, I’m sure.

        1. We can only hope that the country never finds out what AOC’s government would be like. It would look a lot like Venezuela, I’m sure.

          Don’t even have to go that far. Just look at her ancestral home of Puerto Rico.

          1. Ah, PR, progressive paradise. All liberal and latino and everything!

      2. Perez: “She is the face of the new Democrat Party.”

      3. >>>And that is just bullshit.

        her literal accomplishment to date beyond a pretty good margarita is garnering 14000+ idiots from Brooklyn to vote for her … not erecting statues to her just yet

        Chuck & Nancy are letting her have face time b/c she’s news, period. No substance.

        1. What matters is how many people listen to you and agrees with what you say. They said all of the same things about Donald Trump when he started to run for President. People claimed he didn’t deserve the coverage he got. That was also bullshit. Like Trump, AOC represents the views of a lot of people. I can’t stand her and think she is a complete idiot. But, I am not going to kid myself and think she is not popular or important. She is. And the people who claim she isn’t are either kidding themselves about that because they don’t like her or just want that fact not mentioned because it is embarassing to the Democrats.

          1. Cool man. I think she’s a flash in the pan. Squished the second they want to squish her.

            1. I hope you are right. I hope that a good portion of the Democratic party hasn’t gone batshit insane. I really do. If it is the case that all but a few people in the Democratic party see her as the nitwit loon that she is, no one will be happier than me.

    2. If there were an equal and opposite reaction to AOC on the right, think how the left would howl.

      Remember when Sean Spicer mentioned that Hitler abhorred the use of chemical weapons and avoided their use on the field of battle and everyone lambasted him for asserting that Hitler never used chemicals? Neither do I.

    3. The left has gone so authoritarian, it isn’t even funny, and there doesn’t seem to be anything comparable (equal and opposite reaction) on the right.

      You don’t see it because you’ve normalized and accepted the authoritarianism of the right.

      Not saying both sides are equal. But both sides are definitely present, and they are closer to equal than you care to think.

      1. What is the authoritarianism of the right? Name a right that the right wants to take away? And don’t give me abortion since whether that is a right at all is the entire debate. Name something that everyone agrees is a right that the right wants to take away and can fairly be described as authoritarian.

        1. Porn, prostitution, blasphemy, drugs, gambling.

          Not everyone, but a signifant fraction want to ban or severely restrict these behaviors that are none of anyone’s business.

          1. Porn and prostitution I will give you. But I don’t see how the left is any better. In fact, I think the left is probably worse on porn these days.

            Blashphemy I am not following at all. Who on the right is demanding blashpemy laws? No one that I know of. In fact, the only ones demanding such laws are Muslims and they are getting at least tacit support from the left in that endevour and the right seems to be the only ones willing to fight them on that.

            Drugs are a push as well. In fact, Trump is the first President in my lifetime to take significant steps to reform the drug laws and actually do something about the prison problem. Other than change the sentencing disparity on crack, Obama didn’t do anything about the problem. Trump actually got a law passed that significantly changed and reduced a huge swath of drug sentenses and resulted in people getting out of prison.

            1. You said “the right”, not Trump. Trump is not in step with the right on many things. Drugs, for example.

              As far as blasphemy, you may have forgotten the ‘pis Christ’ and poop Mary controversies during which very many conservatives called for government actions. And gambling, of course, Trump embraces, but there are many scolds who object to its legalization still.

              Nonetheless, the leftists are far, far worse and more dangerous, as their ideas are embraced by so many fools, they might be enacted.

              1. As far as blasphemy, you may have forgotten the ‘pis Christ’ and poop Mary controversies during which very many conservatives called for government actions. And gambling, of course, Trump embraces, but there are many scolds who object to its legalization still.

                I have not forgotten those at all. And those were about taxpayer funding not freedom of expression. No one argued that the artist should be prevented from doing the works. They just objected to taxpayer money being used to do it. And that is a perfectly reasonable objection and in no way an endorsement of blastemy laws. And Trump is the Right. He is just not the neocon Right.

              2. As far as blasphemy, you may have forgotten the ‘pis Christ’ and poop Mary controversies during which very many conservatives called for government actions.

                Do you happen to have examples that don’t date back 30 and 20 years, respectively?

                1. The flag burning and national anthem debates were about secular blasphemy. The war on Christmas nonsense was a fight against blasphemers. These are written about with great frequency and emotion when they come around, although few laws have been proposed. They are definitely authoritarian instincts on the right.

                  1. The flag burning and national anthem debates were about secular blasphemy. The war on Christmas nonsense was a fight against blasphemers. These are written about with great frequency and emotion when they come around, although few laws have been proposed.

                    So, no.

                    1. Few, not none. So, yes.

          2. Yes, but most of these non-libertarian ideas have been established here and elsewhere for decades (if not centuries), long before the huge division we now have. In addition, the right may want to limit certain specific actions, but the left is opposing broad individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as free speech and gun rights. Their authoritarian goals are much more dangerous to maintaining a free society.

          3. Yes, but most of these non-libertarian ideas have been established here and elsewhere for decades (if not centuries), long before the huge division we now have. In addition, the right may want to limit certain specific actions, but the left is opposing broad individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as free speech and gun rights. Their authoritarian goals are much more dangerous to maintaining a free society.

          4. Yes, but most of these non-libertarian ideas have been established here and elsewhere for decades (if not centuries), long before the huge division we now have. In addition, the right may want to limit certain specific actions, but the left is opposing broad individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as free speech and gun rights. Their authoritarian goals are much more dangerous to maintaining a free society.

          5. Yes, but most of these non-libertarian ideas have been established here and elsewhere for decades (if not centuries), long before the huge division we now have. In addition, the right may want to limit certain specific actions, but the left is opposing broad individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as free speech and gun rights. Their authoritarian goals are much more dangerous to maintaining a free society.

        2. The right lean more authoritarian–their philosophy hinges on social conformity, sometimes backed with legal measures, but more often implicitly enforced via community pressure. As long as you don’t go out of your way to act obnoxious, they’ll generally leave you alone.

          The left is outright totalitarian–it’s not the right looking to ban plastic straws.

        3. Antichoice pederasts seek to have others initiate force against physicians and women because 1A allows “the coercive exercise thereof” and 14A says “All over fertilized” and Jesus actually existed and make maggot-ridden corpses walk 300 years after Greek Senate debates of which we have records. Yet the brilliant Jesus wrote not a word, nor his illiterate followers. The suckers who can’t tell free from coerced, person from ovum, dead from alive, myth from man, want men with guns to coerce ladies they lack the guts to coerce on their own.

    4. Exactly correct.

    5. Occasional Cortex was elected by mystical Comstock-law prohibitionists seeking to again ban rubbers, diaphragms, the pill, the rhythm method–all based on superstitious pseudoscience as ignorant as the Dems’ desire to ban electricity. Altruist collectivism by brainwashing is the current problem international and national socialists seek to impose at gunpoint.

  25. Quit factmongering, Nick.

  26. She shows every sign of keeping up with the stupid, and I hope she keeps on keeping up. It won’t stop her from getting re-elected, but it will give other Congress Critters pause in supporting her bills.

    I predict she will keep this barrage up for six years, then make noises about running for President, get defeated a few times, and find some other hobby.

    She doesn’t have the stamina to keep it up for 40 years.

    1. Never under estimate crazy and illiberal and ignorant.

      Never.

  27. Here in the ATL, we formerly had a conservative radio talk show host (Neil Bortz) who used to call one of our congress-critters (Cynthia McKinney) “The Cutest Communist in Congress”. I believe AOC now deserves that title.

  28. I got a caucus for her right here!

    1. Careful! Socialists are all about “redistribution”.

      1. Not so much about redistribution. They are more interested in taking. The giving away part is for when there are no shopping malls ready for ribbon cutting ceremonies.

    2. Once you go CBC, you never go back.

  29. Yep, it’s just like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

  30. She’s cute and does a dance, so don’t tease her about policy gaffes.

  31. “This is our World War II.”

    Maybe it’s their World War II because they’re not planning in sacrificing anything for it.

  32. I think it is disingenuous to say that we funded WW2 with personal savings. We sold war bonds, which we later redeemed. How is that different from T-Bills?

    If we are doomed in 12 years, what is AOC’s plan (or anyone else’s) to prevent that?

    1. If we are doomed in 12 years, what is AOC’s plan (or anyone else’s) to prevent that?

      Socialism. With AOC in charge.

  33. In 1943, Federal receipts were 12% of GDP. They reached 20% of GDP in 1944 and have basically stayed there ever since.

    If Global Warming is truly the catastrophic threat, then perhaps the answer is to redirect these funds from other government agencies.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

    1. In 1943, Federal receipts were 12% of GDP. They reached 20% of GDP in 1944 and have basically stayed there ever since.

      Revenues have only hit 19% of GDP or higher five times since the end of World War II. Overall, they’ve averaged about 17% in a very narrow range.

  34. Climate change is playing out like the worst disaster movie ever.

    It’s portrayed as an asteroid that will reach earth in decades.

    But there’s no agreement on anything.

    There is no data to prove the asteroid even exists, when it will get here or what it will do when it gets here. There are infinite proposed solutions without any details.

    It has become divisively politicized with each party undoing the plans of their previous opponents.

    And it’s so fucking long people don’t even care to see the ending.

    But nobody would make so pathetic a movie.

    1. The fundemental problem beyond the things you list is that no one has ever put forward a realistic plan to do anything about it. Even if you believe all of it, there is no way to get the entire world to agree to stop emitting carbon in an amount sufficent to stop it. So, it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not since there is nothing we can do about it anyway. The only option available is to get as rich as possible and do your best to adapt to it, assuming you believe it is true.

      1. Give her a few more months and she’ll be advocating the closure of Disney World and all other theme parks, to reduce vacation-related “non-essential” travel, shuttering National Geographic so they can’t keep encouraging the public to go to unspoiled and far flung destinations, and rationing cards for only 16 oz. of animal flesh per person per week. Except of course for those who are registered officials in the Democratic Party or major contributors to same.

      2. If it wasn’t for the politics and opportunism, we would follow the scientific method.

        We would join forces to completely understand exactly what is going to occur, where and when. Then and only then could we develop a plan.

        If the ocean levels were going to increase by 15 feet in 20 years, we could develop a plan for affected coastal communities and infrastructure. We might need to double our C02 output to accomplish the plan.

        Nope, we’re all about bickering.

    2. Would not hitting the Earth with am asteroid be the solution?

      1. It worked for the dinosaurs.

      2. Climate change you can believe in.

  35. Well maybe the world will end in 12 years, who knows. Who can say what the future holds. But enslaving the human race in a perpetual state of war is not the way to go about stopping this.

  36. “…and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change…”

    If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk continue to get elected, I’m sort’a looking forward to the end of the world, especially if they go first.

  37. “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”

    True. This has been true since 1980.

  38. You Yanqui pussies are funny. In Canada, a near neighbour of the USA, well, we have a prime minister that is just like your gal Sandy but but but he is a man, for the most part. Apart from the Unicorn riding and end times schtick, Sandy and our Jr would be sweethearts in a real socially democratic thingy.

    1. As a Canadian, I resent the implication that Socks is a “man”

  39. “Dad, how can we possibly pay for this really expensive Ferrari and a new swimming pool? Aren’t we seriously in debt?”

    “The same way we paid the new flat screen TV and all groceries, son! We pay with our credit card! It’s the EXACT SAME way!”

  40. Has nothing to do with AOC but the following is utterly moronic ignorant BS

    To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans’ personal savings.

    so let me see – federal debt went from $42 billion in Jun 1940 to $260 billion in Jun 1945. The deficits financed 60%+ of total spending during those years. Not one penny of that debt has been paid off from then to now – but it has all been rolled over a few times at least – always at higher interest rates so requiring more to service the debt. Anyone who thinks that ‘savings’ finances debt creation is simply an idiot living in the 19th century.

    Those who fought and died in that war paid a VERY high price – and it is a fucking obscenity to measure that price in taxes or to talk about that being ‘funded’ at all. Those who fought and didn’t die in that war received a shit-ton of post-war gravy. All financed by – you got it – MORE debt. AOC’s generation will pay a lot more for WW2 than the WW2 generation ever did

    But hey let’s keep pretending that we actually pay for shit and aren’t a bunch of freeloading assholes so that we can turn around and pretend that those damn kids are actually the real freeloaders with their stupid wild ideas and fiscal irresponsibility and their need to clean up yet another mess we made for them.

    1. They didn’t really pay the war debt. They inflated it away. That’s why War Bonds were such a terrible deal financially. By the time they paid off, they were worth only a fraction of their original value. However, it meant that the war was actually financed by Americans, just not during the war.

      The US will pay off its debt the same way. Debase the currency and steal from everyone.

  41. Tanehisi Coates interviewing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Not exactly Frederic Douglass and Mark Twain. More like Mortimer Snerd and a squirrel.

  42. So she doesn’t understand science, history or economics.

    I think it was de Tocqueville who said “The greatest problem with democracy is that you get the government you deserve.” I want to know what we did to deserve her. Did I desecrate a shrine in a prior life?

  43. Apparently she helped raise $360k for “trans kids.” I guess she’s helping pay for their hormones or something, I don’t know.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mvYUaZYtJk

  44. Neither Ronald Bailey or Nick Gillespie are experts in the field of climate change and neither cannot predict climate future. When Gillespie says “Catastrophic climate change is possible,” he pretends that he knows something, but I don’t believe him. Not for a second. Why does Reason engage in a debate about cause and effect and the future of things that cannot be predicted? Oh well, what else would they be writing about, if not politics?

    1. Ron Bailey isn’t an expert?

    2. I think Bailey is an expert.

      1. Has Bailey ever set foot in a physics classroom?

  45. So the answer is using nuclear energy?

    1. Yes, Thorium reactors

  46. Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Tanehisi Coates at an “MLK Now” event in New York.

    I’m surprised the singularity of overhype and stupidity embodied in these two didn’t cause NYC to collapse on itself.

  47. The World Will End At Midnight (12:30 Newfoundland).

  48. Interesting, if it really was going to kill us all in 12 years, then maybe we shouldn’t be wasting any more on health care and student loan forgiveness and instead just trying to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible.

    1. Or maybe all the Hollywood proggies would be shorting their Malibu properties to move to higher ground.

    2. It sure as hell simplifies my retirement planning.

    3. The best and most effective method to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to prohibit liberals and lawyers from exhaling.

  49. Nuclear power plants. Facilitate making modern plants cheaper to install. Let the private sector andrate payers pick up the bill.

    There, problem solved. Less CO2 and rate payers get the bill. It’s simple.

  50. Welfare or Doomsday prepping will probably pay better than saving/investing when these socialists inevitably take power, at least in the short run.

  51. Bailey and Ocasio have never looked at unvarnished climate data. Untampered-with data shows no warming trend whatsoever. Anyone can download the temperature measurements and chart and see for themselves. Climate Cassandraism is reefer madness pseudoscience of the sort that got Big Pharma to market Thalidomide as a replacement for cannabis, and is subsidizing the panels and bird choppers that left Puerto Rico blacked out after the same hurricane that Houston’s nuclear reactors never even felt. Reason writers at one time in the past understood the units of measure used in real climate science.

    1. She’s never looked at data, period. She wouldn’t know data if it bit her on the ass.

      1. She’d probably mistake Lyle for Data, even after having the difference explained to her.

        1. *Lore* damn spell correct!

          1. Why didn’t you use the edit function?

            Oh.

    2. At the start of our nation the aristocrats felt an obligation to fund the federal government, they controlled the federal government, “so why not fund it?”. As time went on, people fought with their lives for control of government. People won control, but not all. Aristocrats really started to lose their control thanks to the New Deal. In response, conservative organizations fought the New Deal. The conservatives won reductions in taxes applied to wealthy, Compromises with conservatives were made to make minimum tax rates at middle class levels to pay for the social programs that people had become accustom to. Then WWII, we rose, and used more of our middle wealth we gained from great success in this country thanks to the social programs of roads, electricity, running water, schools, and libraries. With our money we created the military industrial complex, and we created thousands of military contractors. These companies were and are still controlled by a few families with names like Prince, Devos, Lockheed, and Martin. These are the families that fund families like Clinton, Bush, and Trump, but never ones like Sanders, Warren, and Cortez. The earth is melting. There is a program called Google Scholar and it is free to use. You can go to it and search through much of the research in the known world. And you could ask, why should I trust research, and to that I say you shouldn’t, but you should read it, and judge it, against everything else you have read.

  52. rationing of goods, near-complete federal control of the economy and resources, massive tax hikes

    So… all stuff AOC wants anyway?

  53. Poor thing.

    She seems like she really believes all this stuff.

    Swamp rats will use her because she gets good press and attracts the younger Bernie crowd.

    If she gets in another term or two she will take the blue pill like the rest.

  54. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……………… http://www.mesalary.com

  55. She honestly believes the world will end in 12 years? Even the most alarmist climatologists predict stuff line droughts, floods, and more storms?not the actual destruction of the planet.

    I feel kinda bad for her. She is going to be so humiliated. I knew politicians don’t tend to be the brightest people except in their own estimation, but she appears to be legitimately mentally challenged.

  56. At the start of our nation the aristocrats felt an obligation to fund the federal government, they controlled the federal government, “so why not fund it?”. As time went on, people fought with their lives for control of government. People won control, but not all. Aristocrats really started to lose their control thanks to the New Deal. In response, conservative organizations fought the New Deal. The conservatives won reductions in taxes applied to wealthy, Compromises with conservatives were made to make minimum tax rates at middle class levels to pay for the social programs that people had become accustom to. Then WWII, we rose, and used more of our middle wealth we gained from great success in this country thanks to the social programs of roads, electricity, running water, schools, and libraries. With our money we created the military industrial complex, and we created thousands of military contractors. These companies were and are still controlled by a few families with names like Prince, Devos, Lockheed, and Martin. These are the families that fund families like Clinton, Bush, and Trump, but never ones like Sanders, Warren, and Cortez. The earth is melting. There is a program called Google Scholar and it is free to use. You can go to it and search through much of the research in the known world. And you could ask, why should I trust research, and to that I say you shouldn’t, but you should read it, and judge it, against everything else you have read.

    1. A word salad of misconceptions and propaganda, other than your final sentence.

  57. Seriously, every time she opens her mouth she says something stupid and ignorant.
    I really wish the press would stop giving her any airtime. Better yet, I really wish the press would call her on her ridiculous statements.
    The occasional ‘have you got any proof for that statement?’ would be refreshing and far more honest than to just let her ramble on and talk about stuff she knows absolutely nothing about.

  58. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……………… http://www.payshd.com

  59. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  60. Wait, does this mean we get to nuke Japan again??? 🙂

  61. “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

    I look forward to ridiculing this in 12 years.

    1. YUP.

      Hopefully AOC will be back to bartending long before then!

  62. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…..www. 2citypays.com

  63. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…..www. 2citypays.com

  64. “”The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?””

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2019). “Widespread” agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

  65. What missing here is that there is a real problem and does threaten the future. My parents saw WWII as a the great threat. For my generation it was the worry that the cold war would turn into a world ending hot war. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents todays generation that see the problem that climate change will cause and the need to address the effects. Yes it will cost money, but it will not get cheaper if we delay. What really astounds me is the amount of effort that goes into denying the problem. Yes, all those countries working on the Paris accords, the 97% of atmospheric scientist, the business community planning for the impact and the US military also planning for climate impacts could be wrong. I don’t think they are wrong. What I like to see is the effort in denying the problem, change to suggesting less costly market oriented approaches to the problem. All I see now from the deniers is “I will be dead before the problem hits, so why care.” Glad my parents generation did not think that way with regards to WWII.

    1. “What really astounds me is the amount of effort that goes into denying the problem”

      Shorter M4ever: “I believe the propaganda, so how dare you think for yourselves or subject the projections to scientific scrutiny. Just get on with it and start banning shit.”

      This is the approach that birthed the war on drugs.

    2. The problem is, if you look into the reality of the science, all the scary predictions are… Uhhh… Unlikely. I think the earth is heating up, everybody does really. I think CO2 is adding to that by some amount… The problem is all the current models have been WILDLY off at predicting the amount of warming. The middle of the road estimates were off by 50% over the last decade or so, as in we only got half the warming they said would happen. They have NO CLUE why. They’re trying to figure it out, but at this point they’re essentially still using those completely horrible models basic assumptions to predict things.

      Their catastrophic predictions (they all do low, medium, and high predictions based off of variables), which tend to be what the media focuses on, are off by waaaay more than 50%.

      In short, if I had to guess, I’d say their middle of the road guesses are off by 50%. So we’ll probably have half the warming they claim in those middle of the road guesses… Which means it is a non issue, BY THEIR OWN NUMBERS.

      Until they can get more accurate, it’s all a guessing game. Renewables are progressing on their own, and even if the worst happens, it’s just not going to be a world ending event. It’ll all work out fine.

  66. Does anyone really believe these are ideas that she came up with? She is merely the nice looking salesperson. She is getting rock star celebrity treatment (something the left does all the time) to boost her cult and exposure.

  67. What an utterly brainless dimwit.

  68. To be fair, the %change in global GDP doesn’t correlate with lives impacted exactly. It’s very poor people who will suffer most from climate change due to food shortages, flooding etc. They don’t contribute as much to global GDP as folks with higher incomes who will mostly be insulated from impact.

  69. Cortez is just the tip of the iceberg. How smug and deeply satisfied the Leftists of the 60s must now be, in their dotage, to be able to sit back and witness the fulfilment of their efforts at transforming the education system into a factory for the anti-intellectual corruption of tens of millions of young minds and the mass production of the likes of this deeply dumb but politically acute savage.

  70. AOC is wrong, unless of course she consulted with the Grand Wizard of the Environment, Al Gore.
    He’s never been wrong in his predictions.

  71. AOC is like a young female Nicolas Maduro. And if she were in power she would take us right where Maduro took his country.

  72. she is an “influencer” the left is into influence marketing now and their product is statism.

  73. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here… http://www.2citypays.com

  74. The mind of a child.

  75. Climate alarmists have been wrong about virtually everything.

    The reality is that the climate alarmists are made up of two groups (which have significant overlap): morons, and people who want to control other people. AOC is in that overlap.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..edictions/

    http://humansarefree.com/2018/…..tions.html

  76. Oh please oh please oh please keep going and nature will take care of you.

    Was AOC right? Poll says a third of Americans agree folks should consider threat of climate change before having kids.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.