Who should challenge Trump in 2020? - Part 1

[moviedoors]

At times it's frustrating watching Dems just sit and care to much how something polls. I will give credit to many Republicans who won't care about polling and will double down on stuff.

One time recently this stood out for me is when Clinton was quoted out of context how she wants to get coal miners out of coal mining jobs and instead of doubling down on that statement and putting context to it(ie she wants to bring programs to those areas that will train them in newer jobs) she basically just went silent hoping the issue would pass.

It's a basic case even if you don't win that coal miner vote I think speaking of your policy will make people elsewhere say hey that is a good idea.

Here's an excellent recent example from Nancy Pelosi regarding the recent NFL controversy:

“I love the national anthem. I love the flag,” Pelosi said. “And I love the First Amendment, and I'll just leave it at that.”

Could you have a more limp response?

 

[MaceB]

Bingo. Is it so much to ask that Democrats defend their beliefs?

 

[Herofan]

Problem is if you poll on an issue by issue basis, stuff Dems claim they stand for generally polls better(gun control, raising min wage, government helping the public improve stuff, funding planned parenthood, etc)

The public may want to do a lot of things hypothetically but if it dislikes taxes being raised to pay for them more then they don't actually agree with the Democrats on the issues. Although many swing voters' dislike of taxes vs. desire for government programs varies on which specific programs (and which tax levels) are involved.

Common sense determines it. The world is warming. There is a scientific consensus on that issue.

There is no consensus, though, on what policies could reduce global warming without devastating economies.

 

[Herofan]

The best example is Obamacare. When you dissect the actual policy choices of Obamacare, people like it. They like it because it's common sense that if we pool together, we can reduce cost. It's common sense that pre-existing conditions should go away. It's obvious that everyone should have the right to affordable care. However... when Republicans turn it into a popularity contest by branding it with Obama's name.. then they get the upper hand.

They like the idea of expanding care, not of increasing costs and I suspect most people believe that it on the whole increases rather than reduces costs.

 

[MaceB]

I don't think people have a problem with progressive taxation at all. If you were to ask 10 people if the rich should have the highest tax rate, 8 would say yes. If you asked them if we should tax large corporations to pay for schools, roads, and medicine, most people would say yes.

The problem is that people don't trust elites anymore. They think their tax money is going to the people at the top or being spent frivolously, and they aren't wrong. People would be fine with being taxed, IMO, if they believed the government was doing a good job spending those taxes. This goes back to Democrats having to learn how to defend themselves. Democrats needs to stand up and say, "we need to tax you so we can improve schools or environmental standards or pay down our debt." Instead, Dems cower to the criticism, and they don't rhetorically push for how patriotic taxes are and how much good they can do.

 

[SV Fan]

The public may want to do a lot of things hypothetically but if it dislikes taxes being raised to pay for them more then they don't actually agree with the Democrats on the issues. Although many swing voters' dislike of taxes vs. desire for government programs varies on which specific programs (and which tax levels) are involved.

I forgot taxing rich people more polls positively. lol

And to defend that the republicans will tell us about the almighty Job Creator and how this multi millionaire deserves a break to make our lives better

 

[MaceB]

There is no consensus, though, on what policies could reduce global warming without devastating economies.

No, there basically was. It just sucks now because no one paid attention and now our actions have to be drastic. We knew about Global climate change since the early 90s, and it was clear what the recommendations were: transition out of fossil fuels.

That's basically the consensus of what we need to do still. It's just that no one is doing it... but the consensus on what must be done has always been the same. You're saying there is no miracle cure. That's true. But experts agree on what the solution is nonetheless.

And the thing is... you can't have a good economy with a dead planet, so it's pretty much common sense what our priorities should be.

 

[Aximili86]

No, there basically was.

Which was? Even the hardcore scientific proponents of it being a problem (and they're right), assert it'll cost high-billions, maybe trillions, and from the modelling might only drop emission a single percentage point or two.

Doesn't mean you don't do it anyway, but you can see why economically there's another side to it. We're probably ****ed anyway long-term (short of getting off-planet), there's no major turning the dial back. Green energy's the way to go, but you've gotta do that slowly & incrementally or else you're hurting a buttload of people. And not even so much in first-world countries, but more poor third-world nation for whom fossil's the most affordable & widespread option for now. Once the tech's cheap, simple, mastered, it becomes affordable and then you can take it global as the standard. That's over decades, though.

 

[Lily Adler]

I forgot taxing rich people more polls positively. lol

And to defend that the republicans will tell us about the almighty Job Creator and how this multi millionaire deserves a break to make our lives better

Something about how there won't be any incentive to get more wealthy cause you'll just be taxed more.

 

[MaceB]

Which was? Even the hardcore scientific proponents of it being a problem (and they're right), assert it'll cost high-billions, maybe trillions, and from the modelling might only drop emission a single percentage point or two.

Doesn't mean you don't do it anyway, but you can see why economically there's another side to it. We're probably ****ed anyway long-term (short of getting off-planet), there's no major turning the dial back. Green energy's the way to go, but you've gotta do that slowly & incrementally or else you're hurting a buttload of people. And not even so much in first-world countries, but more poor third-world nation for whom fossil's the most affordable & widespread option for now. Once the tech's cheap, simple, mastered, it becomes affordable and then you can take it global as the standard. That's over decades, though.

There was and always has been a scientific consensus on what we need to do to thwart climate change. It's like exercise.... there's a scientific consensus that aerobic exercise will burn calories and extend your life. That doesn't mean everyone values the scientific consensus or want to lose weight... but the consensus of what would need to be done is the same and is based on facts.

Is there a consensus of what should be done? No... but there's only one solution, and that solution is absolutely clear. We can bring a horse to water, but we can't make him drink. We shouldn't have to compete with laziness as an alternative choice to saving the planet. Knowing that the climate is warming and how to fix it... it's not a question of whether there is a consensus of what we need to do... there is... but some people don't think the Earth is worth saving if it risks the economy. Their comfort comes 2nd to the common good. That's another ball of wax, because that's about priorities, delusion, and common sense.The consensus of what needs to be done is absolutely clear.

 

[Aximili86]

Doing exercise doesn't potentially come with a crippling cost, though. Not a great analogy.

Look, I'm with you that the climate change deniers are horrible. Even then, I hate the word "denier" with its intentional Holocaust comparisons, but the general concept of them being wrong is sound.

But the less-extreme position among a lot of industries of "it's real, but do we really spend a couple trillion as a country to blunt it, if the best-case-scenario is a single degree or two in temperature difference in 100 years?" isn't the same thing. That's an "it's real, but lithium batteries and solar panels mandated isn't going to fix it".

 

[MaceB]

The point is that the science is clear. Whether or not people care about the science is what's different for some folks.

Trust me, if we don't save our planet... calling it a Holocaust would be an understatement.

Again, scientists are telling us what we need to do to avoid massive global climate changes. Yes, even a degree can be a big freaking deal, with bird migration changes, fish zones dying, jellyfish proliferation, droughts, extreme storms and more. The consensus on what must be done to avoid those things are clear. It's just that conservatives are selfish and don't care about how the planet's condition for their grandchildren. The issue isn't the consensus... that's there. The issue is the apathy of conservatives who don't care if it al burns down.

 

[Aximili86]

What you're missing is that some of these people do believe in climate change ( 50% believe it's happening, with 31% of that 50 believing it's human-caused https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/climate/republicans-global-warming-maps.html ). Those aren't great numbers, it needs to be higher, but the party's basically split on it.

Thing is, the conflict is over what to do about it, whether immediate government-mandated "industries go green or get penalized financially" is worth it considering the economic effect and only marginal gain according to the same scientists in consensus that it's real. Basically, you reduce the temperature by a degree over a century, that might have a tangible effect and might not.

We might be screwed all the same. I tend to lean toward "we have to go green eventually, might as well start now", but if others weigh the economic cost over a single degree celsius to be not worth it, that's their prerogative I guess. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in climate change, just that phasing out fossil fuels incrementally in a way the economy doesn't take a huge hit is the way they want to do it.

 

[MaceB]

Basically, you reduce the temperature by a degree over a century, that might have a tangible effect and might not.

No might about it.

We might be screwed all the same. I tend to lean toward "we have to go green eventually, might as well start now", but if others weigh the economic cost over a single degree celsius to be not worth it, that's their prerogative I guess. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in climate change, just that phasing out fossil fuels incrementally in a way the economy doesn't take a huge hit is the way they want to do it.

Awwe, yes... this seems to be your go-to move. "I don't agree with them... I just agree that they have a right to choose the wrong decision." It's cute how you keep carrying water for conservatives but criticizing them at the same time. It must be nice to be able to agree but disagree with almost every position the GOP and Trump take. Makes you feel so sensible.
Scientists agree on what needs to be done. And if folks believe that economics is more important than the environment, well they're clearly wrong. We can't have a good economy with extreme droughts, food shortages, mass migration, bird and fish extinction, and extreme storms. The solution is clear. What's not clear is that all people care. Like most things conservative... they choose the selfish option. Well, I'm gonna spend my time condemning selfish choices... not supporting them (or...I mean...um...not supporting them, whichever position is most convenient)

Your position (do you actually have a position? seems like you want to skirt the line) seems to be that 1 degree won't do that much. That's not the scientific consensus and highly irresponsible.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, yeah, I don't agree with them on their position on it. That's different to being invalid though. If they agree on the science but differ on what action should be taken on it, good for them, whatever.

That's part of basic human empathy. People come at issues from different positions. I don't have any sympathy for people just pretending the science is wrong, but if you believe that global warming's real but don't think "solar panels on everything now, and ban gasoline engines yesterday!" is the right course to take on it and rather prefer something gradual that doesn't screw over the working class's jobs, fine.

 

[MaceB]

Well, yeah, I don't agree with them on their position on it. That's different to being invalid though. If they agree on the science but differ on what action should be taken on it, good for them, whatever.

That's part of basic human empathy. People come at issues from different positions. I don't have any sympathy for people just pretending the science is wrong, but if you believe that global warming's real but don't think "solar panels on everything now, and ban gasoline engines yesterday!" is the right course to take on it and rather prefer something gradual that doesn't screw over the working class's jobs, fine.

I hope you remember you said this in 30 years. It's cowardly to defend the science but also to defend people's right to ignore the science. Shameful.

 

[Aximili86]

Except that half of the party isn't ignoring the science, they believe global warming's happening but just disagree with you on what to do about it.

Which is fine. The scientists are all in-line that it's a real thing, but they're split on the economic feasibility stuff too.

Diversity, whoa man!

 

[redhawk23]

That's because even with wider acceptance that temperatures are rising, there is still massive opposition to the idea that it is the result of human activity.

And even among those that accept that it is the result of human activity, choosing to do nothing about it or to just carry one destroying the environment has for some reason become a point of pride.

Restructuring various activities and infrastructures to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accords would be a massive undertaking to be sure... almost like building an interstate highway system, or putting a man on the moon in less than a decade or any number of largescale projects we like to pat ourselves on the back for. Simply keeping the status quo is so immediately profitable for the right groups of people though that the long term disastrous effects of rapid climate change don't even really factor into our policy making.

The prioritization of economic concerns, the need for constant economic expansion, is exactly how we got in this position to begin with.

To bring this back on topic, I haven't seen any potential candidates with much of an articulated stance or plan of how to work with the international community on this problem.

 

[Herofan]

I believe the Obama/Kerry/Clinton line was that the Paris agreement was as good an international agreement as could be achieved, there was no possible better feasible agreement. So you could only be either for maintaining it or for doing nothing. A next Democratic candidate probably wouldn't want to criticize Obama as not doing enough so all he/she would have to say is be against Trump withdrawing.

 

[CJ]

Hillary.

Easy win for Trump.

 

[Silvermoth]

Interesting article on if trump could face a challenger...from the Republican Party

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...art-worrying-about-a-2020-primary-challenger/

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think a successful Republican challenger is unlikely... But even a failed attempt would probably put that person ahead of the game in the next cycle.

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah that would be interesting. It would be a bit like when obama was against the Iraq war, even before it was cool to do that.

Still you’re right,people didn’t vote republican they voted for trump. Then again we do live in interesting times so anything can happen

 

[Silvermoth]

From https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...m-starbucks-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-run/

Schultz’s name has been mentioned as a potential candidate for at least the last three presidential cycles. In 2016, he was on a list of vice presidential candidates under consideration by Hillary Clinton.

Starbucks did not make Schultz available for an interview.

I don’t love it. But I suppose it’s better than how things are now. And it is exciting that people are starting to talk about this seriously

 

[Aximili86]

He wouldn't have a chance with moderates. He'd be popular with the Sanders/Warren types though, but they're not enough to win an election.