🇺🇸 Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

[MaceB]

It shows to the public what they don't stand for, even though they've constantly & still advocate for those things. This race is off to another illuminating start.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything more than when Republicans wouldn't stand after Obama said something like, "our duty is to make sure our kids stay healthy." It was in the context of Obamacare, so Republicans didn't stand. Does that mean that they are against healthy children? Of course not.

 

[Teelie]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything more than when Republicans wouldn't stand after Obama said something like, "our duty is to make sure our kids stay healthy." It was in the context of Obamacare, so Republicans didn't stand. Does that mean that they are against healthy children? Of course not.

Given their track record it's hard to believe otherwise. They only seem to care enough about a life right up until it is born then they could care less. Look at their attempts to kill Obamacare, to allow insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions (which when the Republicans realized how much demand there was they backtracked) or how little they care about vaccines or education or sexual education. They put out a lot of "think of the children" legistlation but little of it actually benefits them.

2kt09 is wrong about the Democrats but this idea Republicans care about children isn't right either.

 

[MaceB]

Of course you're right. It's an imperfect example. I just mean it's not fair to take a moment in the crowd where they should be clapping for the cure to cancer... for example...

It's not as if anyone is against finding cures to cancer. They're sending a message by sitting down, for sure, but it aint... "woohoo cancer."

I'm certainly in agreement that Republicans have a bad record when it comes to children's healthcare. For sure.

 

[2kt09]

2kt09 is wrong about the Democrats but this idea Republicans care about children isn't right either.

? I'm just showcasing the pettiness and the unwillingless to take the "high ground".
Break the cycle, albeit then they can't play up to their base for this upcoming election.
I don't recall bringing up the Repubs, just Dems & Trump.

 

[Teelie]

I think it is just the idea the Republicans double standard hypocrisy over the Dems not standing when every other time there is a Democratic President they sit down and do their own form of protesting.

Usually though it isn't a president who has gone out of his way to divide and anger half the country with pointless rhetoric.

 

[2kt09]

I think it is just the idea the Republicans double standard hypocrisy over the Dems not standing when every other time there is a Democratic President they sit down and do their own form of protesting.

Hyprocrisy is what I enjoyed most of the 2016 election. Now I just feel sad for one side.

 

[MaceB]

There's nothing hypocritical about not standing at SOTU when Trump says the country is doing great. The subtext behind the statements is that the country is doing great because of Trump's policies, which they disagree with. They demonstrate that disagreement by sitting. Just like every political party has done for every modern SOTU address.

 

[Herofan]

All the trends were on their way up before Trump took office... thanks to progressive economic policy. That's why they don't clap... they don't want Trump to take ownership of their accomplishments.

The position that he doesn't deserve credit for the good circumstances/trends occurring during his tenure seems pretty unappealing and petty (especially if most voters don't vote against someone because they don't deserve credit, only if they deserve blame) but it is a difficult circumstance for an opponent to be in with no particularly good or best way to react or respond, yeah cheering for it would seem to be openly giving credit even if not cheering seems like just lack of acklowedgment.

 

[Herofan]

BTW, to the extent that Obama deserves credit for the economic recovery and then continued boom does that help the Democrats but not progressives, not the progressive faction of the Democratic party?

I think especially on the economy Obama and his administration were considered by both upset progressives and independent analysts to be pretty centrist and moderate, in personnel and policies and even goals tending to continue Bill Clinton's approach, New Democrat and economically liberal if not neoliberal.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[2kt09]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

 

[Herofan]

If you don't want to go broke and make your country broke, lose your job and take away other people's jobs, you're not willing to, you're even hesitant about doing so, you obviously hate the Earth and children, the only reason to not want to do so is being paid off by oil companies.

 

[MaceB]

If that was the start of the conversation, we'd be good.

"Oh okay... you're worried about jobs and going broke? Okay, well how can we transfer to renewable energies in such a way that we educate people and transfer them into new jobs without occurring financial pain? Can we work together on this?" It's not as if this is an insurmountable problem, if we actually wanted to do it.

The reality is that the whole, "this will hurt jobs" argument isn't usually used as a beginning to the conversation; it's used as the end. A way to shut down the conversation. As if, it's a sin to hurt the sacred economy gods for the sake of the environment.... so we should dare not even try in the first place.

But in reality, we can have both - a good economy, and a sustainable environment. That's the only responsible way to do it. Cause if we ignore it, in order to save people's jobs... then they're gonna lose those jobs eventually. The economy isn't going to be so great when we have mass migration, ocean acidity, larger storms, and smaller yields of food.

 

[Aximili86]

Dude, nobody's taking this stuff seriously. Pelosi included, look up her response about it. She literally just started her own climate committee and didn't even put AOC on it, to boot.

There's no nitty-gritty details in this Green Plan anyway, it's all basically ideological. "Get the country off fossil fuels entirely in 10 years!" is great and all, they just haven't articulated how they're exactly going to do that. Saying the goal is to get enough high-speed rail up and running that people will no longer need to fly is nice, it's just never happening. Pretty much outlawing gas-guzzling fully-fossil cars sounds nice for the greenies, you're just not accomplishing that. Let alone in a mere decade, and the people don't want that anyway.

No different to the healthcare thing. Polls show people are for "Medicare for all" when you phrase the question that way, the polls show the opposite when the follow-up is "are you for shutting down the private insurance industry". Majority of people are happy with their private coverage.

I know it's inconvenient for you guys, but the Bloombergs & Schultzes of the world know their **** on this, in a pragmatic sense. Hell, Pelosi does too, Biden, those guys, they're just not exactly going to say it publically in an election cycle.

This stuff happens gradually, and through voluntary private sector means because overall it's good for business, not through government mandate. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example: the US never signed it, but by now we've beaten that emissions goal anyway, because it makes sense to go that way. But when Ocasio-Cortez talks about **** like getting entirely off oil in a decade, making planes obsolete through bullet-trains, getting everyone in the country to drive a ****ing Prius by regulating fuel-injected cars into oblivion, it's just not happening. Not the way she & her buddies are proposing, anyway, that's a long game through R&D and costs reducing over time, without curbstomping entire job markets by decree.

Pelosi. Knows. This.

 

[Herofan]

If that was the start of the conversation, we'd be good.

"Oh okay... you're worried about jobs and going broke? Okay, well how can we transfer to renewable energies in such a way that we educate people and transfer them into new jobs without occurring financial pain? Can we work together on this?" It's not as if this is an insurmountable problem, if we actually wanted to do it.

Some conservatives, some liberals genuinely are for increasing cleaner energy gradually and in ways that minimize economic losses. Others, seemingly many progressives, want to force reduction of carbon fuel use regardless of even the current readiness of cleaner energy sources, let alone regardless of whether a transition destroys many scales more jobs than it creates to replace them. Progressives certainly demand a Green New Deal and Ocasio-Cortez's version proposed requiring more land than the size of California, being by the government rather than incentivizing private companies and costing trillions (through either increased taxes or expanded credit/inflation) certainly seems extreme and likely to be pretty catastrophic itself.

The reality is that the whole, "this will hurt jobs" argument isn't usually used as a beginning to the conversation; it's used as the end. A way to shut down the conversation. As if, it's a sin to hurt the sacred economy gods for the sake of the environment.... so we should dare not even try in the first place.

Not a sin against the sacred but worth considering and being cautious about putting in policies that would destroy many jobs, could destroy even more and it's unlikely, certainly at this point and the near future, they could be replaced.

 

[moviedoors]

The New Green Deal is a bust. No plans for nuclear energy? Come on.

However, this is still an issue that requires real urgency. Are we all forgetting what the IPCC conservatively estimated? We have 10-12 years to right this ship before it's too late. We don't have time for business-as-usual, snail paced pragmatism. I'd rather when my daughter grow up she have to worry about finding work than becoming a coastal flight or fresh water shortage refugee.

 

[MaceB]

Dude, nobody's taking this stuff seriously. Pelosi included, look up her response about it. She literally just started her own climate committee and didn't even put AOC on it, to boot.

There's no nitty-gritty details in this Green Plan anyway, it's all basically ideological. "Get the country off fossil fuels entirely in 10 years!" is great and all, they just haven't articulated how they're exactly going to do that. Saying the goal is to get enough high-speed rail up and running that people will no longer need to fly is nice, it's just never happening. Pretty much outlawing gas-guzzling fully-fossil cars sounds nice for the greenies, you're just not accomplishing that. Let alone in a mere decade, and the people don't want that anyway.

No different to the healthcare thing. Polls show people are for "Medicare for all" when you phrase the question that way, the polls show the opposite when the follow-up is "are you for shutting down the private insurance industry". Majority of people are happy with their private coverage.

I know it's inconvenient for you guys, but the Bloombergs & Schultzes of the world know their **** on this, in a pragmatic sense. Hell, Pelosi does too, Biden, those guys, they're just not exactly going to say it publically in an election cycle.

This stuff happens gradually, and through voluntary private sector means because overall it's good for business, not through government mandate. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example: the US never signed it, but by now we've beaten that emissions goal anyway, because it makes sense to go that way. But when Ocasio-Cortez talks about **** like getting entirely off oil in a decade, making planes obsolete through bullet-trains, getting everyone in the country to drive a ****ing Prius by regulating fuel-injected cars into oblivion, it's just not happening. Not the way she & her buddies are proposing, anyway, that's a long game through R&D and costs reducing over time, without curbstomping entire job markets by decree.

Pelosi. Knows. This.

You're accusing AOC of presenting no ideas and of presented unrealistic ideas at the same time.

I think the polls show that Medicare for all or Universal coverage is liked by many Americans, giving how you frame it.

You're right. It's an ideological statement. It's essentially saying that drastic actions need to be taken, and that the "pragmatic" wing of the party needs to be aggressive on these issues. I don't disagree that people like Biden and Pelosi know their stuff... not enemies you'd want to have on any day of the week. But it's possible that their effectiveness at the art of "getting things done" has blinded them to this issue, which does have this invisible ticking clock, counting down. The Green New Deal expresses that urgency.

There is precedent for the government redirecting private business to help solve a national emergency. And no, it's a terrible idea to wait for private interests to deem it worthy enough to act on it. It's not like we have anything to lose if you're wrong or anything. The market will save us! Please.
Looking far ahead and stopping future dangers through regulations is exactly what the government was designed to do. Make no mistake, we should enlist private businesses to help.... but it's a government AND private business situation, not a government OR private business situation.

See, just like I said above... if your concerns were a start to the conversation, we could work them out. Like, okay... 10 years is too soon. Can we work on that date? 20 years? Couldn't we develop a few bullet trains to see their effect first? Wouldn't it create jobs? Maybe we could create tax incentives for small businesses to build it. Would you mind driving a prius? What's the problem? If there is one, then I'm sure we can work it out.

The truth is that you don't want to work it out. The planet is warming, and rather than work the problem... you're angry because of the culture wars. It's not really the cost or the feasibility... it's the fact that you hate liberals and you want to hate their hippity dippity ideas. Well tough.... we have a national emergency on our hands. And none of the suggestions in the Green New Deal are bad. We should get off fossil fuels in 10 years. We should build high speed rail. We should demand that everyone has universal care. Don't think it's feasible? Well for our sakes, I hope you're wrong.

 

[MaceB]

Some conservatives, some liberals genuinely are for increasing cleaner energy gradually and in ways that minimize economic losses. Others, seemingly many progressives, want to force reduction of carbon fuel use regardless of even the current readiness of cleaner energy sources, let alone regardless of whether a transition destroys many scales more jobs than it creates to replace them. Progressives certainly demand a Green New Deal and Ocasio-Cortez's version proposed requiring more land than the size of California, being by the government rather than incentivizing private companies and costing trillions (through either increased taxes or expanded credit/inflation) certainly seems extreme and likely to be pretty catastrophic itself.



Not a sin against the sacred but worth considering and being cautious about putting in policies that would destroy many jobs, could destroy even more and it's unlikely, certainly at this point and the near future, they could be replaced.

I appreciate your argument. I'd ask you to consider the idea that the environment has been taking one for the team since the industrial revolution. We've known about climate change for 3 decades. And there is, in fact, a ticking clock.

So if we're being urgent... I'm sorry. Many of us would argue that we aren't being urgent enough. And yeah.. taxes going up is a reflection of the societal importance that this thing has taken. We're all gonna have to pay more to fix this problem. We've been indulging, and enjoying for years and years... and now comes a bit of the pain. That's not the Democrat's fault. That's realty's fault... that's just the world that we are walking into. And there will never be a time where business is in a lull and we have this defined window to act. For many of us, the time to act is now... because it actually is that important.

Am I down to work with you to make the change as harmless as possible? Of course, but the change has to happen. We play nice. Nothing happens. We suggest bold change. We get ridiculed. What exactly do you want the left to do to get through to half of America that we need clean oceans and temperament environments in order to do business?

 

[Aximili86]

The New Green Deal is a bust. No plans for nuclear energy? Come on.

Yeah, that's the part that always makes me smirk with these people. If they were really serious on this stuff, they'd be throwing everything at nuclear fusion R&D. Hell, even the current cleaner fission in the meantime, do what you have to do. Get people out of this knee-jerk ignorant "no nuclear!" hysteria, people thinking the tech's still the same as the 50s.

Solar & wind is great and all, as a supplement. You don't power countries this size on wind & solar, they're just nice offsets for the main show, let people get off the grid in small scale if they want to.

You're going to have to get fusion up and running eventually. One plant, power the whole ****ing country for 50 years. Caltech says we're a lot of the way there, they just can't fund it anymore because everyone's on the solar & lithium batteries train like predictable smallminded trendriders.

But like, hell, if you're worried about emissions until fusion's a reality, just go with the modern fission stuff we have ready to go anyway. Nobody died of anything reactor related at Fukushima anyway, and Japan's the absolute wors-case scenario for a nuke plant anyway, building on a faultline.

 

[Aximili86]

The truth is that you don't want to work it out. The planet is warming, and rather than work the problem... you're angry because of the culture wars. It's not really the cost or the feasibility... it's the fact that you hate liberals and you want to hate their hippity dippity ideas. Well tough.... we have a national emergency on our hands. And none of the suggestions in the Green New Deal are bad. We should get off fossil fuels in 10 years. We should build high speed rail. We should demand that everyone has universal care. Don't think it's feasible? Well for our sakes, I hope you're wrong.

Also, Jesus Christ. The guy wasn't arguing that high-speed rail shouldn't happen, or that climate change isn't an issue.

He's just putting it out there that this plan's buzzword bull**** with zero substance and an absolute willful ignorance on what it would do to entire industries. Like sure, you're going to create thousands of jobs building a bullettrain network, no doubt. A drop in the bucket compared to the likely-couple-of-million working in oil or coal gigs as of now though.

And those jobs can be converted to the new stuff, absolutely. Thing is, that's a slow-burn, that takes time and happens as the industries evolve by merit, not from above by mandate. You try to push through something like this green plan as it stands, it's going to be Obamacare in the midterms all over again. You're not just dealing with opposing red state types, the undecideds/independents are going to bail on you in a heartbeat. The actual statesman types like Pelosi and the oldschool Democrats know this, it's why Ocasio-Cortez didn't even get brought into the fold on the actual party group itself dealing with climate change. You don't want a bomb-thrower on this, let alone someone with Trump levels of inexperience and bluster.

 

[MaceB]

So... first it was that the Green New Deal doesn't present any actual ideas to adopt. Then, it was oh... some of the ideas could be adopted theoretically, but never in reality. Now, it's... well, these things could be adopted in reality, but it'd come at a really high political cost. Cool.

.You can't have it both ways. You can't say... no one is saying that climate changing isn't an issue. And then, at the same time.. say that there is zero substance. The proof of climate change is the substance.

Please accept that a "by merit" model or a supply and demand model may not be suited to deal with or predict permanent anthropological change of the planet. That's why governments perform R&D. They have... they've warned... but at a certain point, yes, it's the responsibility of the government to protect the state from enemies foreign and domestic.

This idea that we need to wait for the market to save us is just looney toons, man. I think a bomb thrower may be exactly what we need on this issue.

 

[Prettyricky]

I think for the good of the party AOC should not talk to the public or present her “ideas” until theyve said them outloud in the mirror. Crap like this new green deal is why trump keeps having more support. Can we just drop everything free and the government will pay for it and regulate it, its not going to fly.

 

[MaceB]

Why not? The government pays for medical care in every other industrial country. Our secondary schools are already public.. certainly we could pay for community college if we thought it was a priority.

And saving the planet from carbon emissions is the most urgent, serious issue facing this generation.

AOC is doing great. Her thoughts are lucid. Her arguments are composed. She's absolutely killing it.

 

[Herofan]

I appreciate your argument. I'd ask you to consider the idea that the environment has been taking one for the team since the industrial revolution. We've known about climate change for 3 decades.

At the risk of a cheap shot (but it really is fair and worth considering), 10 years before that there were widespread claims of global cooling, a coming Ice Age. The claims were not as widespread or as well-supported with evidence as now with global warming but still were widespread. Of course there would then be particular skepticism that carbon emissions would lead to catastrophic global warming.

Am I down to work with you to make the change as harmless as possible? Of course, but the change has to happen. We play nice. Nothing happens. We suggest bold change. We get ridiculed.

A mild but gradually increasing carbon tax (especially if it was revenue-neutral) and, otherwise, just incentivizing clean energies would seem a very reasonable and productive policy response, not sure if it would succeed, let alone quickly enough, but anything is a risk.

 

[Prettyricky]

Why not? The government pays for medical care in every other industrial country. Our secondary schools are already public.. certainly we could pay for community college if we thought it was a priority.

And saving the planet from carbon emissions is the most urgent, serious issue facing this generation.

AOC is doing great. Her thoughts are lucid. Her arguments are composed. She's absolutely killing it.

Thanks for the laugh, her ideas would bankrupt our society. She proposes an investment in society but no returns on that investment. Her “like” attitude and well just tax the rich or well figure it out as solutions is asinine