Printable View
Trump is ****ing insane but he's WAYYYY more realistic than Cortez and it ain't even close. A lot of people don't like his policies and that's to be expected but they're very reasonable compared to her bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
The Green New Deal is what a bunch of junior high students would mock up if you gave them 45 minutes, lol.
Lol. I don't care about the dumb labels even I just pointed out what he was literally saying. Left/Liberal/Democrat/Independant/Libertarian all the way to Republican/Right depending on who it is I am talking to. I do lean left/libertarian on the political compass so that seems to fit best to me but it is whatever for the most part/irrelevant to most discussions if people want to be rationals/logical that's what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by benny01
If talking about a group then talk about things that group overwhelmingly support not use it as a way to group people together/bash. Shows the bias from the very first post.
So it depends on what we are talking about here. I think Trump has shown a much more dangerous level of insane/lying/divisiveness. It isn't just in his policies it is the constant lying etc. without any real intention for something good but often times to divide and attack. I don't really think the two are that close in this manner tbh. The policies often are based on some sort of this too though on top (ban muslims for example during campaign).Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
If you want to point to specific issues with the green deal and call them insane I actually might agree depending on the issue. This is a different scenario than above though, it is going too far within a specific policy designed to help the public as whole but not having legitimate answers how to get there yourself. I think some things are just unrealistic/insane but at the same time make good goals which is very important context (a goal doesn't always have to appear within reach this second).
So when it comes to who is making larger plans to help people and reaching more to fulfill them at times I can agree it is probably AOC. I just think this is much different/better than constantly attacking/lying in a divisive nature over so many ridiculous things/partisan games in the way Trump does it.
The best part of all this whining is that there are many other supporters of the Green New Deal (as were there many other people of influence who questioned, even opposed Amazon’s NY gambit) and yet you’d think that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the entire thng.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Ever heard of Ed Markey?
Check out the list of proponents at the bottom of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
He plays heavy from the hack playbook. The posts speak for themselvesQuote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
You can live in a fantasy land but in reality the party that actually wants to vote on the dem proposal are republicans, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Thank you once again for not responding to anything whatsoever in my post, though you felt the need for some reason to quote it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Can you at least leave your ball; some of us still have the guts to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Your post post was about how much support the green new deal really has. So I replied with a post about how the dems don't even really want a vote on it. :laugh: Sounds really popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
I'd like to see a psd green new deal vote. Just to see who actually supports it. I think a lot of people agree with the sentiment and say nice things about it but know it's a farce.
I mean you are just kinda pointing to the political game around the ideas...Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Here is an article that covers the actual popularity behind the movement/individual ideas within. Not everything in the plan is perfect or even necessarily good/feasible but it is a pretty huge overall plan to address a serious problem our government has largely been ignoring.
https://www.businessinsider.com/alex...ns-poll-2019-2
87.6% of respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate-change-related disasters.
87.2% of poll respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources; 12.7% said this goal was either not so important or not at all important.
86% of those polled said it was important that the federal government enact policies aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).
Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.
And 87.5% of respondents said it's important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.
The resolution's call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular, with 87.6% of those polled saying it's important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.
Again in a general sense this has a lot of things the general public is mostly behind it is just that as an overally plan it reaches to far in areas/doesn't have a reasonable plan forward to obtain some of the goals but that doesn't mean it isn't largely supported by most that the government at least TRY and cover some of these issues which it tries to do. Being in opposition to policy is quite easy by poking a hole here or there but coming up with something that everyone wants is difficult which is why Republicans did a decent job opposing Obama and now look pretty insane next to Trump even when in full control (until recently). An attempt at good policy that people want but might not be perfect is better than playing insane games to avoid even touching policy that most people want
Cause you're cherry picking the vanilla stuff. Even I support all that and have for years. We've been working on going 100% renewable for quite some time. There's nothing groundbreaking coming from her camp regarding that.
The green new deal calls for massive government overhaul. Jobs guarantees, housing guarantees, some quasi overhaul of the food industry. There's so much wacky **** in there that she couldn't resist including because in reality the green new deal is more about a socialist takeover than energy.
I am pointing out that the "vanilla stuff" aka basis of most of the bill is supported by the public. It might be too far of a step/need better planning within but it is something that most people, including yourself apparently want and this is the ONLY plan I have seen covering all these issues in a meaningful way.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
I agree that it does go too far in other areas as well but the point is it is ALSO the only plan out there that seems to truly want to attack many of these issues. It does have more added into it as well and I don't agree with the plan in its entirety because of it but I can easily acknowledge how much different this approach is than the same old same old back and forth game where it never really gets addressed via policy.
Opposing ideas without your own plan and going to extremes like socialism to attack are pretty easy/common in politics, seem like you just want the same old same old that lead us to where we are/Trumpism. It can be an environmental plan that also covers other areas/goes too far left without being a plan based on socialism.
Like I could easily get on board with a proposal based on most of those ideas that didn't also have a ton of other things attached too.
The only thing I am pointing out is that this plan is mixed because it 1. is the best option covering a lot of issues most Americans want and 2. isn't necessarily a good option because it is focused on other areas/isn't always clear exactly how to obtain said goals (or the way seems unrealistic).
Until another plan at least has 1 I don't get the point of bashing this bill nonstop instead of actually discussing those good aspects as well as the bad ones individually to make a better plan forward.
Calling her plan socialism isn't extreme - it's reality. No one forced her to make it about that stuff. And even if you cut all that stuff out and just focus on going 100% renewable by year 20xx it's still unreasonable without even factoring in how we pay for it. The country has a massive energy demand to meet and we can't overhaul the system that quickly.
It's really a joke that it's even called the green new deal when it's about so much other stuff.