Prepare yourself to lose a little more pride in our educational system when you hear about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ most recent comments regarding eliminating gas-powered vehicles.
As reported by The Blaze:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said that gas-powered vehicles must be eliminated as much as possible in order for everyone to survive.“Would you like to see gasoline-powered vehicles gone within 12 years?” an interviewer asked her.
“Well as much as it is technologically possible I think we need to draw down our fossil fuels as much as we possibly can,” she responded. “I don’t think we should build another pipeline at all in the United States of America.
“It’s a matter of our survival,” Ocasio-Cortez concluded. “I don’t even think it’s a matter of political opinion. It’s scientific fact.”
You can see the interview in the tweet below:
AOC says we must eliminate cars "as much as we possibly can" and no more pipelines can be built in the U.S.
"It's a matter of our survival."
"I don't even think it's a matter of political opinion. It's scientific fact" pic.twitter.com/VJm0YbGFsb
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) August 13, 2019
So, we can’t build another pipeline in the United States because it would our civilization to cease to survive? And she’s calling this “scientific fact?”
How sad that a college-educated woman would not know the difference between a fact and an assumption.
The question is, does she actually believe what she says, or is she simply confused?
Take for example when she was questioned by Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes:
Anderson Cooper: One of the criticisms of you is that— that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios—
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness—
Anderson Cooper: —for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
It’s refreshing to hear that her goal is being “morally right” although there is no evidence of it whatsoever in her personal beliefs.
It would seem that being “morally right” would include saying things that you know are true, rather than making something up in the moment to persuade people with what is most likely a lie.
Another thing that would build up her “moral rightness” would be following the guidelines that she intends to force on the rest of America with her Green New Deal.
The problem is that she has never shown any sign of lessening her own carbon footprint, although she thinks it “morally right” to force all of the rest of America to lessen theirs.
The NY Post highlighted her hypocrisy:
To achieve this, the GND fact sheet says, the nation must “totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail … create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”
But the woman who boasts of a “razor-sharp BS detector” seems to have trouble sniffing out her own.
Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign heavily relied on those combustion-engine cars — even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.
She listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno and other car services, federal filings show. The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone.
In all, Ocasio-Cortez spent $29,365.70 on those emissions-spewing vehicles, along with car and van rentals — even though her Queens HQ was a one-minute walk to the 7 train.
This is crazy to consider when you watch the video and see how passionate she claims to be about getting rid of all of our cars.
A woman who doesn’t even follow her own guidelines doesn’t really seem like a woman worth following at all. Am I wrong?
Leave you comments in the section provided below.