Been awhile since we wrote about AOC and not because she suddenly starting tweeting smarter things … no no. We just sort of got tired of writing about her so we started ignoring her mildly to moderately ignorant tweets knowing though that when she tweeted something exceptionally stupid we’d have to cover her again.
And here we are.
It takes a special kind of deliberately obtuse to tweet this about the Trump administration’s new work requirement for food stamps. Granted, any sort of effort to empower the people to do for themselves will be looked down upon by socialists like AOC but c’mon, this was dumb even for her.
My family relied on food stamps (EBT) when my dad died at 48.
I was a student. If this happened then, we might’ve just starved.
Now, many people will.
It’s shameful how the GOP works overtime to create freebies for the rich while dissolving lifelines of those who need it most. https://t.co/WOrYvhfPj4
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 5, 2019
It’s like she didn’t read it OR she assumes her vapid base didn’t.
The work requirement would only impact able-bodied, childless adults between the ages of 18-49 which means her family would not have been impacted by this requirement at all.
But you know, she’s never been one to care all that much about being factually correct as long as she’s morally correct, right?
1) They would not have starved.
2) The law wouldn’t have applied to them.
3) If you can’t agree that single, able-bodied people should be working if collecting money from their fellow citizens, you’re part of the problem. https://t.co/XNw1ynXOs6— Fuzzy Chimp (@fuzzychimpcom) December 6, 2019
The new rules don't apply to families with children.
You'd think a member of congress would know that.https://t.co/RmGQW4PoSs pic.twitter.com/ZyYu5OucdZ— Jim (@Ifitsthisname) December 5, 2019
You’d think.
Oh no 20 hours of work a week for childless individuals! The shame!
— Dan ?? (@danieltobin) December 6, 2019
You should get a refund on the BC degree.
— Stop The Nonsense (@theRealTort) December 6, 2019
“I was a student.” You legit thought writing “student” everyone would think you were a child.
You were 19 and a Sophomore at Boston University.
Food stamps? Stop pic.twitter.com/0sLg8VEKcX
— I Yam What I Yam (@Nvr4Get91101) December 6, 2019
They could have STARVED!!!
this wouldn't have happened to you because it only affects able bodied adults withOUT kids ??♀️
— Lisa H Turnage (@LisaTurnage12) December 6, 2019
The rule applies to able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who do not have dependents.
The rule wouldn’t apply to parents with minor children, the elderly, or disabled people.
— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) December 6, 2019
Wow.
And you are a Representative?
Warmonger much?
Adults with children are not effected or targeted.
Children are not effected.
It's amazing that if you read the document that you came up with this.
Oh yeah, Orange Man Bad.
Must IMPEACH.
Only thing your side knows.— GatorMike402??? (@MichealHill18) December 6, 2019
The policy doesn’t affect parents with kids. Please do research before you react.
— Ken Webster jr??? (@KenWebsterJrSho) December 6, 2019
The nearly 700,000 people who this will affect are able bodied adults under 50, who have no children.
— Jill (@11MyJam) December 6, 2019
But that doesn’t sound as dramatic or as horrible as STARVING FAMILIES.
Cry me a river…this is merely asking people who are between 18-49 who are able bodied to get a damn job! As a single parent when my kids were young I worked 40+ hours to not have to rely on the government to feed us. It’s not asking too much for people to work 20 hours
— Teresa Keefer (@TKeeferAuthor) December 6, 2019
Did you have a mom?
— Carpe Donktum? (@CarpeDonktum) December 5, 2019
This woman is such a liar & fraud. She knows full well that Trump’s new food stamps policy only applies to people between the ages of 18 & 49 who are childless and not disabled. So it wouldn’t have affected her sob sorry.
She preys on the ignorant to stir up hatred & division— Melissa A. (@TheRightMelissa) December 6, 2019
It’s the Democrat way.
Related:
