Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 March 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Are we her PR company?

This article reads like it was taken directly off her campaign page. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make edits where you think they are necessary. LuodiWang (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki evaluates the validity of other progressive thinkers/pundits (ex.: PZ Meyers or Kyle Kulinski). I don't see any problem, in theory, of making a page for Ms. Cortez and adding more content to it when possible. Joshua the Great {ta;l) 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Should we add sections about how she humiliated Gavin McInnes and Ben Shapiro on Twitter? LuodiWang (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@LuodiWang Why should we? What motive do we have to care about what amounts to a shouting match on social media? How does it benefit the article? What purpose does documenting these pathetic cat-fights serve? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Well for starters, Ben Shapiro is still whining about being compared to a catcaller. Just check out his Twitter page right now. LuodiWang (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I think everything looks fine except for the last sentence, which is jumping the gun. Nerd (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@LuodiWang Let's not waste time with Internet drama, please! Nerd (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As much as we want a candidate like her...

...there is no point in having a page like this. If you've read Conservapedia's page on Trump you'll notice it's just political fanboying, and so is this page. Maybe the contents of this should be summarized in a single sentence and merged with the Ben Shapiro page? ^{— Unsigned, by: Evolution and Metamorphosis / talk / contribs}

I don’t think this page should be deleted. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is currently a very important political figure, so she deserves to have a RationalWiki article. If you don’t like the current article, maybe you should try adding more information to the page. LuodiWang (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

She's actually had a load of gaffes, maybe we could cover those. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've not been exposed to any of them; that's not to say you're wrong, just that you'd need to give some hint as to what you're talking about. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Pick any right-wing outlet, add her name to the search and you'll find heaps. Here's my favourite one: https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/1027556829113536513 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your best source is a Twitter post by a Fox News anchor? You sadden me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"best source" Are you always like this? Lighten up a little. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You made a claim, someone asked for sources, you provided a source, I pointed out that your source wasn't very good, and you accused me of needing to "Lighten up a little". I think your response to that might need some work.

P.S. I would lighten up but my doctor told me I was underweight so... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was asked to give hints. Here's another hint: Follow the link and you'll find some funny CNN footage. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so you're just too lazy to link the actual video/article. Gotcha. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, just follow the link, watch that and the footage and other more complete footage if you can find them. You will be in a better position to criticize and not look silly yourself by accusing others of being lazy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I did after the second reply, however I dislike relying on reposts on social media due to the rabbithole of links you sometimes of have go through. It's much simpler and easier to just link the original in my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(EC)Well, moreso than the source being silly, stuttering a bit is bad public speaking, but it's not a gaffe per se, which implies there's some fundamental misunderstanding conveyed by her words. Like, write it out as a non-direct quote and see if it still sounds dumb: "Cortez stuttered and took two or three tries to describe problems she had with current party leadership". It's not worth including that way. It doesn't reflect on her biases or misunderstandings of the way the world works.

When I do arbitrarily pick a right wing outlet and search her, as you suggest, I get redscare quotes about her being an evil socialist. Which... isn't a gaffe either. viz Fox News "She thinks national parks are democratic socialism, which is wrong", but she's clearly and accurately articulating her own views? Democratically maintained government projects for social good is what DSA types are all about? I dunno man, you're gonna have to explain specific examples of what you think need to be included, because this handwaving is getting me nowhere. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. A nice list of relevant links. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, she seemed genuinely confused about what Pelosi's current position is. Not the best look for someone running as a Democrat. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Could always be a filter bubble, but argument ad googlem seems to be failing you. 1st result: "Apparent gaffe" of referring to winning seats for socialists as "red seats". Uh. Gotta break the news to you, but that's literally what she meant, it's asinine purposeful invention of a gaffe. 2nd result: yeah, okay, she legit misinterpreted how unemployment numbers are calculated, but it was tangential to her point that "low unemployment" covers up massive amounts of economic inequity at the bottom. I guess you can incorporate that one. 3rd result: her gaffe was that she wanted to change the politics of the democratic party. No. You didn't mishear, her entire mission in running is somehow a goddamn gaffe to these clowns. 4th result: She called Israeli soldiers shooting and killing 34 protestors "a massacre" yep. That's the gaffe. Using the correct word to describe an event. Fuck you. I'm tired of this. Give me something specific, and don't generally wave at the idea of "gaffe", and actually defend whatever position you want to take.

No, really. Take a goddamn position, on a particular statement. You can be wrong like the fucks 1,3, and 4 above, but at least don't waste my time with completely vague bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol, maybe you misread me but my position is simply that "She makes gaffes. Which I laugh at." You're free to dismiss every other gaffe as "not really a gaffe", you do you I guess.

But to indulge you for a bit: Yes, she's a socialist so she could easily identify with the color red. But considering America isn't exactly a hotbed for socialism and red is the colour of the major party she opposes, it's still a pretty bizarre thing to say publicly into a camera. The unemployment numbers thing was obviously a gaffe, and on top of that her claim that everybody is working multiple jobs is ridiculous considering the number of people working two jobs is only 5%, a historic low. My 3rd result was a reiteration of the unemployment one, so... *shrug* Re Israel: A massacre of terrorists, if Hamas is to be believed. But the gaffe in question was her repeating the anti-Israel talking point of "Israel occupying Palestine" and when asked on further comment she made clear she didn't have a clue what the phrase was supposed to mean. (She explicitly admitted this.) Later she interpreted conservative Jews criticizing her for the last gaffe as "the alt-right going haywire". Heh. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, there's a pretty clear line between deliberately misunderstanding someone's intentional and purposeful statement and a "gaffe" that's very clear, above and beyond "me doing me". Israel literally occupies the territory of Palestine and declares it theirs, and subject to their jurisdiction. The people who live their are under Israeli control, do not have ultimate civil authority over their own governance and policing. You cannot take literally true statements of fact and go "AHA IT'S A GAFFE BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT DISAGREEABLE". Lots of people consider "the rich are too rich" to be a disagreeable thing to say, but saying it is having an opinion not a fucking goddamn public misstatement. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you always this obtuse? Regardless of where you stand on Israel, she admitted she didn't know what she was talking about. Also, this might be news to you, but a gaffe being a "social blunder" inevitably makes them subjective and particular to the societies they occur in. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we're defining terms. It's good to define terms. So... would you say admitting you don't entirely understand a situation in it's totality is a gaffe? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that making claims about an issue that presume some knowledge on the issue and then admitting you don't really know much about the issue, but maybe your claims were referring to this tidbit, or rather this one, or maybe that one (probably that one)... amounts to a pretty gaffe-y situation, yes. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't carry your eggs in one basket; rumor is New York Democrats could redistrict her out of a seat if she becomes any more of an embarrassment to the party. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So, ummm...can we move the contents of this page somewhere else? The last edit was at least a month ago. —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol, I only just noticed LuodiWang copy-pasted Ikanreed's strawman comments into the article. Hilarious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait

How did my exact words get in the article? This is way too off the cuff to be appropriate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can thank LuodiWang. I think he has a bone to pick with me because I've objected to some of his exaggerations on the Candace Owens page (and his category spamming). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I too have a bone to pick with you, but also, the gaffes section is really pointless, no one remembers or cares about those "gaffes" now. We'll see if she wins or loses the election and what she does in office for crazy rankings? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope she wins. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Main space?

Hey folks! If you compare the status of the page when it was sent to draft space to how it is now, I think this page should be moved to main space. Nerd (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok wow

We really need to fix up the article to address the insanity that is AOC. I mean, this is a person who said that it's more important to be morally right than to be factually correct. Wut. Just, wut. We are looking at a left-wing Sarah Palin here, and really we should tear her a new one. CoryUsar (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, to curruptuser for regurgitating a flagrant and purposeful misrepresentation in the pursuit of "factually right". The context is entirely clear she values factual accuracy and detests nitpicking liars.

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.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

That is to say, don't be my guest. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@IkanreedIf CorruptUser wants to add information about AOC's (alleged) quackery, he is welcome to do so himself, rather than getting us to do so. If his edits are actually good, then that's great. If not, then we will discuss them, and evaluate them, as is standard. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just saying the particular example he's citing as crazy comes from a lie. Purposeful distortions of people's words to make them seem crazy is dumb, and bad. And no one should be reading the kind of shitty right wing blogs that made it "news". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been pretty skeptical of a lot of the coverage of AOC. It's a repeat of the Sanders media circus. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Her statements about moral right being more important than being factually correct IIRC, refer to her claim that the Pentagon had accounting errors of "$21 Trillion", when in reality this wasn't even the total amount the US had even spent on the military in the timeframe; there is no giant pile of money in a warehouse somewhere to be spent on whatever social programs we desire. While the US does indeed have a bloated military budget and has thrown away gigantic fortunes *cough*F35*cough* it's nowhere near government healthcare spending in the US, let alone total healthcare spending in the US. Furthermore, a lot of this bloat is on the behalf of European allies such as Germany, who gets an additional 40,000 troops, supplies, equipment, etc all at no cost to them, who can then reduce their own spending on the military and support other parts of their own economies, something which actually was one of Trump's legitimate gripes with NATO. CoryUsar (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been pretty impressed by how quickly Ocasio's mastered the skills of a shrewd politician. I'm sure her clumsiness is genuine, but she's really learned how to exploit it. Wondering when she'll have her defining "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" moment. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In fairness to Obama, not all of his supposed gaffs were actually gaffs. I actually agree with his "you didn't build it" pseudo gaff. Truth is, a company requires things like roads, sewage systems, electrical infrastructure, a literate workforce, a military, police and court system to defend the business, fire and other emergency services, to say nothing of the customers of said business requiring social welfare (e.g., all those welfare queens on food stamps and housing assistance are nothing compared to the grocery stores and slumlords that collect that money). In short, no, no one really built their own business by themselves, especially not a tech company which relied upon the government which funded the development of the internet and all that tech in the first place. So yeah, all the companies of the world need to start paying just some of their profits back to their local governments, because it's a bit unfair that everyone else should bear the burden of the services that those companies have used to become fabulously wealthy. CoryUsar (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you think I'd get the full quote if I wasn't aware of the context, but the thing you want to add to imply she's crazy is a complete misrepresentation of her statements about the importance of fact(in that she specifically follows that statement with a clarification about how facts are important). It is, to be honest, a bigger and more intentional lie than misunderstanding a report about improperly tracked allocations to imply that the number it listed was a total spending. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This is her own tweet.

$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.

And that’s before our premiums.

CoryUsar (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the thing is only the last sentence in that tweet was false. All her other statements were very sourcable, but she misunderstood the findings of the GAO report on the transactions that "could not be traced, documented, or explained" in that each budget allocated dollar could (and was) involved in multiple transactions due to the nature of government funding, and the report was over 25 years, and the hypothetical MFA budget was over 10. There's context that makes the conclusion she presents wrong, but to call it a specific disconcern with facts is straight up a lie. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hey folks! I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between outright lying and simply making a mistake. Nerd (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Economics

This article doesn't mention her plans not being financially realistic or refusing to debate opponents for stupid reasons. I would be willing to make these changes but I want to see others opinions. Commie Lib (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Opponents" in political contexts refers to people she ran against, who she did debate quite publicly. Not debating conspiracy mongering internet trolls isn't exactly a failing. I don't know what it is about her that makes normally sensible, liberal people suddenly start believing completely bullshit right wing talking points with no basis in reality.

You can talk about the feasibility of her financial plans, but it would need to incorporate consideration of the actual positions she asserts vis-a-vis the costs of climate change, serious changes to taxation policy, and the net savings in total healthcare expenditure that MFA projects. These aren't irrelevant details for that discussion. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Both political parties in the US advocate expensive programs without any real plan to pay for them. As you probably already know the Republicans recently lowered taxes costing the government a cool 2.3 Trillion over the next ten years. Free College would cost maybe 650 billion. Who's honking your horn?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Racism?

The fuck? She's categorized under "racists," no evidence whatsoever to suggest she is. Is the anti-sjw crowd just having another case of the fuckarounds or what? SocialistBeverageWarrior (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@SocialistBeverageWarrior Look at who she thinks should be exempt from U.S. immigration laws. She wants people to receive special treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity. Is that not racism? Nerd (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Look where?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Look here. We actually have it in the article. Nerd (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

How is that racism? She hasn't expressed the opinion that Latinx peeps are inferior or superior. What she's saying isn't any more racist than the concept of affirmative action, regardless of how you feel about it on a policy level. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

She wants a race/ethnicity to receive special treatment under the law. That counts is racial discrimination, or racism. However, since the source link is dead, I removed that statement. Nerd (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You are levying a relative serious accusation on rather spurious grounds. Stop edit warring.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Remove it, clearly people don't like that it's here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s a policy that doesn’t have any legal standing, may or may not be morally correct, but from I’ve seen there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this policy suggestion is inherently racist. —Sophie (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Huh? It was not the part that was disputed; that was the category. I said I was not going to put it back. The bit I re-added was there all along. I only changed the reference because the old one was dead and added the screenshot uploaded by @Dysklyver.

Dear @LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian @DuceMoosolini @RWRW @Spud You guys might wanna keep an eye on this. For context, please check the page's history. Nerd (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's okay to have it in there to note it as a gaffe, but it's a stretch to call her an out and out racist because of it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I said I was not going to put that category back! Check the Coop archives! Good heavens! The old source is dead! Why can't I replace it? And what's wrong with adding a screenshot of a relevant tweet someone made an effort to upload? There is nothing malicious about it. Just a retweet of someone else's post with a video of her speaking and a news headline that is not spinning anything out of proportion. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, never mind. Sorry for bothering you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cortez has also stated that immigrants of Latinx heritage cannot be considered illegal and should be exempt from immigration laws because "We are descendants of Mesoamerican cultures and this land is our native land."

I don't like the language here. "Expresses X opinion because [quote from tweet]" isn't a good way to represent her views, especially out of context. She seems to be to be appealing to the notion that some Native Americans have mixed with Latinos and therefore, discriminating Latinos based on them not being "native" is absurd. It's a gaffe, as interracial mixing in the past doesn't have much bearing on illegal immigrants, but to phrase it in the current way to make her look dumb and simple-minded on a complicated issue is pretty disingenuous. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Has she explicitly stated that she wants to give preferential immigration status to latinos, or promoted policy that gives preferential immigration status to latinos?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get that from that tweet. I think she's trying more for emotional appeal on top of other arguments. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but you are not going to be able to find the original video in the current revision. The current link is dead. My version has it, but one editor above accused me of edit-warring for adding back that particular bit after removing it because I found the link to be broken. I added it back after finding a new link that works. And again, I added a screenshot that D was kind enough to upload for us to use. So go back to my revision, check the video and rewrite it. Goodness!Nerd (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Full quote here.

We are standing on Native land, and Latino people are descendants of Native people. And we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity and our status.

It's the second sentence that is problematic. You cannot be criminalized for your racial or ethnic identity, yes. No objections from me. But it's immunity to a certain law because of race or ethnicity that is a cause for concern. You can't say you're X, therefore, your immigration status is immaterial. Nerd (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The link I replaced is here. The story is here. Do what you want. I'm done here. Nerd (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The video can be viewed in context here:[1] I don't think I have any more to add than what I said in the coop about this:

“”1) I do think that Nerd is editing in good faith. 2) What AOC said in that statement is what could be called racism. Does a single statement make one a racist? I don't think so. 3) The reason why that statement is dubiously racist is: 4a) Guatemalans (for example) never had a traditional right to live in what is now the US. US Native Americans have additional rights because of treaty obligations, which at least in principle have the the force of international law. These treaty rights pertain only to official treaty members and are heritable, but not strictly genetic (hence the Cherokee have such rights despite substantial mixing with whites and African Americans). But 4b) Latino is a very broad category including some indigenous people, mixed indigenous people (such as presumable AOC), Afro-latinos, recent (e.g. Italians to Argentina) and long-ago European migrants, as well as Jews and Palestinians who migrated into Latin America.

Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Making Nerd's position crystal clear

Apparently I have not been clear enough, so here is one last try.

1. The bit originally in dispute was the "Racist" category. I said on the Coop and on multiple occasions here I will not put it back.
2. Brxbrx undid an edit of mine in the content space then accuse me of edit-warring (!). I removed a sentence on what she said about certain groups of people and immigration laws because the original source link was dead. I later put it back because I found a link that works. I also added a screenshot provided by Dyskslyver. This is the bit that was undone. I will not put that bloody category back.
3. If you wish to use the resources put forth by @Bongolian, @Dysklyver, and myself to provide a clearer, more accurate picture of her stance on immigration, please go ahead. Thanks to both of them. I will not put that category back. I'm glad at least some people, such as Oxy, has finally come to the conclusion I meant what I said. Check the edit history.

Nerd (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I for one am not hating on you for the momentarily overblown dispute over a category. Honestly if the Coop hadn't already been open it would never have been an issue anyway. — Dysk (contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-issue to me. AOC may be racist, may have misspoke, may be slightly biased in favour of natives, or may subscribe to some sort of woo about native cultures. The sources and the evidence they provide will determine the truth, not our opinion of her or our political preferences. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nerd, As I said in the coop, I thought you were editing in good faith, and I still do think that. Bongolian (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is Nerd's willingness to edit war. He will continue doing so even when the issue is brought up on the talk page. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rely on Hanlon's Razor for the time being. In fact, it's probably how I view the issue currently. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, maybe, the Dunning-Kruger effect Ariel31459 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

AOC? Agreed, @LeftyGreenMario. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The original edit (and a surprise)

Here is the original edit that added the disputed content (note the source given) and here is the very next edit Wherein Nerd removes said content due to poor sourcing. here is the content in question being added back in with the now defunct source. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

guarantee access to healthy foods

Under welfare we are told she wants "to guarantee access to healthy foods".

This sounds a bit like vague political flim-flam to me. How exactly would you do such a thing? How are you going to define "access"? Do most people not have "access" in one way or another at the moment?

And if you don't have "access" what would your method of redress be?Hubert (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)