View Full Version : Can We Just Skip Eletction 2020?
IMPress Polly
04-08-2019, 06:36 AM
Yes, that's obviously a hyperbolic title, not something I mean literally. But the essential thing I'm getting at is that I'm already depressed by and tired of this election even though it's still more than a year and a half away.
The year, and the campaign, started out fine enough, launching effectively in January with the first candidate announcements taking place amidst the backdrop of the record-length government shutdown over the border wall. The early candidates were mostly women and mostly progressive in their political leanings. I was actually kind of excited. I hadn't seen so many women or progressives run for the same party's nomination before! I fairly quickly decided on Elizabeth Warren as my overall preference, but would've still been fine with candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, or Bernie Sanders. Indeed, at first it seemed like Harris and Booker actually formed the new "moderate" wing of the candidates in general, with more traditional, neoliberal Hillary Clinton-like forces being weaker candidates this time around, like mayors and Representatives of individual districts rather than Senators or Governors. All of the named candidates I just mentioned were running on the Green New Deal and Medicare for all and other progressive ideas that varied by candidate, ranging from tuition-free college to abolishing ICE to slavery reparations. Then came Trump's war on socialism (so-called) and epic mistakes like the failure of the Democrats to denounce anti-Semitism in their own party in the same unqualified way they had successfully demanded the Republicans do vis-a-vis the white racism of Steve King. Billionaires ranging from Howard Schults to Mark Cuban began threatening to run as independents and major neoliberal Democrats appeared either in or in proximity to the presidential race ranging from Senator Amy Klobuchar to Joe Biden.
More recently, the DCCC has enacted a new policy barring party funds for any polling or consulting firm that works for a primary challenger to an incumbent Democrat. The goal is to prevent any repetition of the campaigns by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, who defeated more conservative incumbent Democrats in safe Democratic seats in New York City and Boston and both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former president Barack Obama have openly denounced proposals like Medicare for all and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party leadership and influencers are putting their thumbs on the scale for prospective candidates like Joe Biden and other 'acceptable' white, male, pro-corporate Democrats.
To be honest folks, I'm not really quite as worried about Joe Biden as many on the left are. I think there's a good possibility he will be the Democratic nominee, but I also think there's emerged a good possibility that the nominee will instead be a more 'Obama-like' candidate like Beto O'Rourke or Peter Buttigieg, who you've probably noticed have generated a great deal of excitement (and, crucially, fundraising) of late. As we saw recently, Beto O'Rourke actually leads the fundraising pack, ahead of Bernie Sanders, while Pete Buttigieg is surging in both the polls, Google searches, and fundraising all. Watch for that around Buttigieg to increase further once he formally announces on the 14th of this month (April 2019).
Anyway, Biden is a weaker candidate that you may think. He may be touted as this genteel old guy who 'knows how to talk to the Midwestern old white men who voted for Obama and then Trump', but the fact is that, once you set aside his rhetorical style, you realize that he has a long political resume that contains all the same problems that Hillary Clinton had, plus some of his own, and that this record just simply won't appeal to younger voters in a way that drives them to the polls on election day. Biden voted for the crime bill, for the Iraq War, for the now-infamous bankruptcy bills of the 2000s and for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, refers to himself as "pro-life" on abortion, still won't recant his now-well-known opposition to busing in the 1970s or his "intimate" style of campaigning. And then there is the way he treated Anita Hill, which is by itself disqualifying for me. That is a record that younger voters and feminists are unlikely to be excited by. That's an awful lot of baggage that frankly he'll likely spend his whole campaign re-litigating. Pundits and party leaders often mistakenly believe that having a Washington resume that won't quit is some kind of electoral advantage. It's not. Consider that the last three Democratic presidents we've had -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama -- while not progressive leftists like Bernie Sanders, were nonetheless known for their comparatively short political resumes and typically youthfulness as well. Consider conversely the fate of Democratic nominees who had lengthy governing resumes going in, like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. How did that work out? The fact is that while progressives don't have enough appeal to win over the average Democratic voter, the younger candidates in this race, like Beto O'Rourke and even Peter Buttigieg maybe, who are running as typical, Joe Biden-like neoliberals but with youth and vigor (YaY!), are factually best-positioned to actually defeat Trump because, unlike Biden, they can get not just the support of older, whiter, wealthier voters, but also of younger voters and people of color. I think those younger candidates have a solid case to make that they're the most "electable" in reality.
So what's my problem, you ask? My problem is that I don't like these emerging non-progressive 'youth candidates' either. I know that I wrote a glowing commentary on Beto O'Rourke's nearly victorious Senate bid in Texas last year, but that was a different candidate. That was a Beto who was running on Medicare for all and impeaching Trump and other clear-cut progressive stances that have since been abandoned. It has become clear to me that the Beto of last year was a farce from the beginning and that the real Beto is the one who's political career began with hawking one of his father's urban gentrification projects. In other words, he's basically the Justin Trudeau of America. I don't think I much care for him. But it certainly feels like my generation (and the younger one) writ large feels differently and that I find to be discouraging. In that sense, his candidacy makes this contest feel like 2008 again for me, wherein I felt isolated from my generation's enthusiasm for then-candidate Obama for similar reasons.
Beto's not my greatest concern though. Peter Buttigieg is. Buttigieg is, in my personal opinion, the worst Democratic candidate running. Certainly my least favorite. By that I mean that I'm not even sure I like him better than Trump. I definitely would never vote for him. There are so many things I dislike about him that it's nearly impossible to list them all, but let's just summarize it all by saying that he is the stereotypical entitled millennial SJW in this race. He's a 37-year-old mayor who governs a city of 102,000 people and feels himself qualified to be president, nay owed the White House by virtue of his historically young age alone (he would be the youngest president we've ever elected). He was the first candidate to volunteer, without being asked, his support for the Equality Act: an extraordinarily misogynistic policy advocated mainly by the transgender movement (currently H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives, in case you're wondering) that would outlaw single-sex public spaces in this country and prohibit most speech critical of transgender politics (https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbian-feminist-slams-the-equality-act-h-r-5-is-a-human-rights-violation/), among other things, and is kind of the bane of my existence right now! Other Democrats unfortunately support the Equality Act (which I support in principle, but not in its current form; the protections for gender identity definitely need to be changed to protect gender expression instead to avoid the aforementioned problems), but none prioritize it like Buttigieg does. He is portrayed as being so so SO in the loop because of his age, and yet has only recently learned what Black Lives Matter is! (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710080667/pete-buttigieg-explains-his-agenda-for-black-voters) Maybe knowing the ins and outs of the technology industry isn't actually the same thing as knowing what's going on in the country on the ground! Oh of course he's against the Green New Deal and in favor of instead a carbon emissions tax that would mainly fall on working people, being as he seems to have learned absolutely nothing from either the Sunrise movement OR the yellow vests! But the icing on the cake really is his call to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 15 so that he can unilaterally appoint 6 more to his liking, swaying the political balance of the court. THAT position in particular is the perfect concentration of the arrogance of this particular candidate and of the strikingly authoritarian tendencies that that sheer, unbridled arrogance yields. This position in particular worries me a lot in that it seems to signal a distinctive and particularly frightening recklessless. I think we need to move away from the kind of authoritarianism that this administration represents, personally.
Anyway, the fact that candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and even Bernie Sanders are fading in the polls and these "young, inspiring, positive" pro-corporate candidates are surging in both the polls and in the fundraising at their expense signals that this nominating contest is headed in a direction that I don't care for. If the Democrats nominate Biden, Trump will probably be re-elected. If they nonimate O'Rourke or, worse, Buttigieg, I feel that Trump may not be re-elected, but wonder how much better what we'll get will actually be. Believe it or not, I'm not interested in a handsome-yet-substance-free Justin Trudeau of America. And I'm not an ageist stereotype of my generation either. I'm a working woman with real needs who wants a candidate that Wall Street hates (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70percent-of-wall-street-thinks-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020.html). I like the 69-year-old woman calling for the breakup of the tech giants and the factory farms that ran my family out of business and is serious about saving the planet. I guess that's just not very cool right now. It's too bad.
stjames1_53
04-08-2019, 06:50 AM
just what kind of plan is there to save this planet?
IMPress Polly
04-08-2019, 07:05 AM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
DGUtley
04-08-2019, 07:23 AM
I am not looking forward to the constant Robo calls
stjames1_53
04-08-2019, 07:24 AM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
do you actually believe that we can stop the natural progression of this planet?
The GND is not about revitalizing our infra-structure. That's the bait. The switch is all of these reparations for minorities.
Changing immigration laws to allow the claim of refugee status due to Global Warming. If it's changing there, why come here, because we are under the same gun.
Are you so eager to be taxed up to, maybe, 80% of your income to pay for all of this?
How are you going to be able to afford a house while all these other houses are being torn down or gutted to suit her plan?
If you own your home, you might still have a mortgage. How are you going to maintain payments if Cortez's plan kicks in? Where and how will you live until her project is completed?
Remember, 10 years is a longgggggggggggg time for people who do not have a roof over their head because this is AOC's plan.
Hell, not one democrat voted for it when it hit the floor
donttread
04-08-2019, 07:36 AM
Yes, that's obviously a hyperbolic title, not something I mean literally. But the essential thing I'm getting at is that I'm already depressed by and tired of this election even though it's still more than a year and a half away.
The year, and the campaign, started out fine enough, launching effectively in January with the first candidate announcements taking place amidst the backdrop of the record-length government shutdown over the border wall. The early candidates were mostly women and mostly progressive in their political leanings. I was actually kind of excited. I hadn't seen so many women or progressives run for the same party's nomination before! I fairly quickly decided on Elizabeth Warren as my overall preference, but would've still been fine with candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, or Bernie Sanders. Indeed, at first it seemed like Harris and Booker actually formed the new "moderate" wing of the candidates in general, with more traditional, neoliberal Hillary Clinton-like forces being weaker candidates this time around, like mayors and Representatives of individual districts rather than Senators or Governors. All of the named candidates I just mentioned were running on the Green New Deal and Medicare for all and other progressive ideas that varied by candidate, ranging from tuition-free college to abolishing ICE to slavery reparations. Then came Trump's war on socialism (so-called) and epic mistakes like the failure of the Democrats to denounce anti-Semitism in their own party in the same unqualified way they had successfully demanded the Republicans do vis-a-vis the white racism of Steve King. Billionaires ranging from Howard Schults to Mark Cuban began threatening to run as independents and major neoliberal Democrats appeared either in or in proximity to the presidential race ranging from Senator Amy Klobuchar to Joe Biden.
More recently, the DCCC has enacted a new policy barring party funds for any polling or consulting firm that works for a primary challenger to an incumbent Democrat. The goal is to prevent any repetition of the campaigns by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, who defeated more conservative incumbent Democrats in safe Democratic seats in New York City and Boston and both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former president Barack Obama have openly denounced proposals like Medicare for all and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party leadership and influencers are putting their thumbs on the scale for prospective candidates like Joe Biden and other 'acceptable' white, male, pro-corporate Democrats.
To be honest folks, I'm not really quite as worried about Joe Biden as many on the left are. I think there's a good possibility he will be the Democratic nominee, but I also think there's emerged a good possibility that the nominee will instead be a more 'Obama-like' candidate like Beto O'Rourke or Peter Buttigieg, who you've probably noticed have generated a great deal of excitement (and, crucially, fundraising) of late. As we saw recently, Beto O'Rourke actually leads the fundraising pack, ahead of Bernie Sanders, while Pete Buttigieg is surging in both the polls, Google searches, and fundraising all. Watch for that around Buttigieg to increase further once he formally announces on the 14th of this month (April 2019).
Anyway, Biden is a weaker candidate that you may think. He may be touted as this genteel old guy who 'knows how to talk to the Midwestern old white men who voted for Obama and then Trump', but the fact is that, once you set aside his rhetorical style, you realize that he has a long political resume that contains all the same problems that Hillary Clinton had, plus some of his own, and that this record just simply won't appeal to younger voters in a way that drives them to the polls on election day. Biden voted for the crime bill, for the Iraq War, for the now-infamous bankruptcy bills of the 2000s and for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, refers to himself as "pro-life" on abortion, still won't recant his now-well-known opposition to busing in the 1970s or his "intimate" style of campaigning. And then there is the way he treated Anita Hill, which is by itself disqualifying for me. That is a record that younger voters and feminists are unlikely to be excited by. That's an awful lot of baggage that frankly he'll likely spend his whole campaign re-litigating. Pundits and party leaders often mistakenly believe that having a Washington resume that won't quit is some kind of electoral advantage. It's not. Consider that the last three Democratic presidents we've had -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama -- while not progressive leftists like Bernie Sanders, were nonetheless known for their comparatively short political resumes and typically youthfulness as well. Consider conversely the fate of Democratic nominees who had lengthy governing resumes going in, like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. How did that work out? The fact is that while progressives don't have enough appeal to win over the average Democratic voter, the younger candidates in this race, like Beto O'Rourke and even Peter Buttigieg maybe, who are running as typical, Joe Biden-like neoliberals but with youth and vigor (YaY!), are factually best-positioned to actually defeat Trump because, unlike Biden, they can get not just the support of older, whiter, wealthier voters, but also of younger voters and people of color. I think those younger candidates have a solid case to make that they're the most "electable" in reality.
So what's my problem, you ask? My problem is that I don't like these emerging non-progressive 'youth candidates' either. I know that I wrote a glowing commentary on Beto O'Rourke's nearly victorious Senate bid in Texas last year, but that was a different candidate. That was a Beto who was running on Medicare for all and impeaching Trump and other clear-cut progressive stances that have since been abandoned. It has become clear to me that the Beto of last year was a farce from the beginning and that the real Beto is the one who's political career began with hawking one of his father's urban gentrification projects. In other words, he's basically the Justin Trudeau of America. I don't think I much care for him. But it certainly feels like my generation (and the younger one) writ large feels differently and that I find to be discouraging. In that sense, his candidacy makes this contest feel like 2008 again for me, wherein I felt isolated from my generation's enthusiasm for then-candidate Obama for similar reasons.
Beto's not my greatest concern though. Peter Buttigieg is. Buttigieg is, in my personal opinion, the worst Democratic candidate running. Certainly my least favorite. By that I mean that I'm not even sure I like him better than Trump. I definitely would never vote for him. There are so many things I dislike about him that it's nearly impossible to list them all, but let's just summarize it all by saying that he is the stereotypical entitled millennial SJW in this race. He's a 37-year-old mayor who governs a city of 102,000 people and feels himself qualified to be president, nay owed the White House by virtue of his historically young age alone (he would be the youngest president we've ever elected). He was the first candidate to volunteer, without being asked, his support for the Equality Act: an extraordinarily misogynistic policy advocated mainly by the transgender movement (currently H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives, in case you're wondering) that would outlaw single-sex public spaces in this country and prohibit most speech critical of transgender politics (https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbian-feminist-slams-the-equality-act-h-r-5-is-a-human-rights-violation/), among other things, and is kind of the bane of my existence right now! Other Democrats unfortunately support the Equality Act (which I support in principle, but not in its current form; the protections for gender identity definitely need to be changed to protect gender expression instead to avoid the aforementioned problems), but none prioritize it like Buttigieg does. He is portrayed as being so so SO in the loop because of his age, and yet has only recently learned what Black Lives Matter is! (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710080667/pete-buttigieg-explains-his-agenda-for-black-voters) Maybe knowing the ins and outs of the technology industry isn't actually the same thing as knowing what's going on in the country on the ground! Oh of course he's against the Green New Deal and in favor of instead a carbon emissions tax that would mainly fall on working people, being as he seems to have learned absolutely nothing from either the Sunrise movement OR the yellow vests! But the icing on the cake really is his call to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 15 so that he can unilaterally appoint 6 more to his liking, swaying the political balance of the court. THAT position in particular is the perfect concentration of the arrogance of this particular candidate and of the strikingly authoritarian tendencies that that sheer, unbridled arrogance yields. This position in particular worries me a lot in that it seems to signal a distinctive and particularly frightening recklessless. I think we need to move away from the kind of authoritarianism that this administration represents, personally.
Anyway, the fact that candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and even Bernie Sanders are fading in the polls and these "young, inspiring, positive" pro-corporate candidates are surging in both the polls and in the fundraising at their expense signals that this nominating contest is headed in a direction that I don't care for. If the Democrats nominate Biden, Trump will probably be re-elected. If they nonimate O'Rourke or, worse, Buttigieg, I feel that Trump may not be re-elected, but wonder how much better what we'll get will actually be. Believe it or not, I'm not interested in a handsome-yet-substance-free Justin Trudeau of America. And I'm not an ageist stereotype of my generation either. I'm a working woman with real needs who wants a candidate that Wall Street hates (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70percent-of-wall-street-thinks-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020.html). I like the 69-year-old woman calling for the breakup of the tech giants and the factory farms that ran my family out of business and is serious about saving the planet. I guess that's just not very cool right now. It's too bad.
What? You want to skip constant lying politicians on TV? Non neutral "news networks" chirping at you 24/7? A rehash of the same answers for the same unsolved problems they always rehash in debates? Maybe you don't even want to see your tax money go for hauling the politicians around , including the pres. to campaign? You want to miss all that knowing the outcome at the top level is practically already set in stone?
What the hell is effecting you? Intelligence? Foresight? Common Sense? An ability to read real world evidence? Recent history? Whatever it is there is no place for that kind of free thinking at the water coolers in America!
So you should pick a side, buy a flag , brainwash yourself into believing that all good that has ever been done has been done by or because of "your side" and that all the evil of all time( possibly excluding the Old Testament) was the fault of "the others" and that this time it will be different! Then you can contribute to the division that allows the collective donkephant to stay in power despite failing the people at virtually every turn, collectively.
Get some spirit!
FindersKeepers
04-08-2019, 07:41 AM
Beto's not my greatest concern though. Peter Buttigieg is. Buttigieg is, in my personal opinion, the worst Democratic candidate running. Certainly my least favorite. By that I mean that I'm not even sure I like him better than Trump. I definitely would never vote for him. There are so many things I dislike about him that it's nearly impossible to list them all, but let's just summarize it all by saying that he is the stereotypical entitled millennial SJW in this race. He's a 37-year-old mayor who governs a city of 102,000 people and feels himself qualified to be president, nay owed the White House by virtue of his historically young age alone (he would be the youngest president we've ever elected). He was the first candidate to volunteer, without being asked, his support for the Equality Act: an extraordinarily misogynistic policy advocated mainly by the transgender movement (currently H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives, in case you're wondering) that would outlaw single-sex public spaces in this country and prohibit most speech critical of transgender politics (https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbian-feminist-slams-the-equality-act-h-r-5-is-a-human-rights-violation/), among other things, and is kind of the bane of my existence right now! Other Democrats unfortunately support the Equality Act (which I support in principle, but not in its current form; the protections for gender identity definitely need to be changed to protect gender expression instead to avoid the aforementioned problems), but none prioritize it like Buttigieg does. He is portrayed as being so so SO in the loop because of his age, and yet has only recently learned what Black Lives Matter is! (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710080667/pete-buttigieg-explains-his-agenda-for-black-voters) Maybe knowing the ins and outs of the technology industry isn't actually the same thing as knowing what's going on in the country on the ground! Oh of course he's against the Green New Deal and in favor of instead a carbon emissions tax that would mainly fall on working people, being as he seems to have learned absolutely nothing from either the Sunrise movement OR the yellow vests! But the icing on the cake really is his call to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 15 so that he can unilaterally appoint 6 more to his liking, swaying the political balance of the court. THAT position in particular is the perfect concentration of the arrogance of this particular candidate and of the strikingly authoritarian tendencies that that sheer, unbridled arrogance yields. This position in particular worries me a lot in that it seems to signal a distinctive and particularly frightening recklessless. I think we need to move away from the kind of authoritarianism that this administration represents, personally.
.
Wow, you said a lot, but I'm only going to address Buttigieg right now. It's to his favor that he opposed the Green New Deal, as many other democrats do, because it's unworkable and nothing more than a sideshow for AOC. I agree with you on his SCOTUS idea, that's not great -- but one thing about him you didn't mention, yet I picked up on immediately, is his tendency to play the "religion" card, which is a little odd for a democrat. He's fond of saying someone must not be a Christian if they don't interpret scripture the way he interprets it.
I think he could be dangerous.
Can We Just Skip Eletction 2020?
Uhm no.....there is a good chance that a lot of leftists will commit suicide.
Chris
04-08-2019, 09:22 AM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
The Green New Deal is a joke, Polly.
Common
04-08-2019, 10:28 AM
Bernies Sanders leads the entire field in fundraising not Beto Orourke Senator Bernie Sanders Leads 2020 Presidential Campaign Fundraising http://time.com/5563406/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Bernies Sanders is the clear frontrunner at this point, long long way to go. The more the candidates talk the less chance they have because they are all trying out LEFT each other. I dont believe Joe
Biden cant win, his more conservative past and his idiocy wont resonate with the young nutjobs. Bernie resonates because hes just like them only an old nujob.
Buttgieg I hear is gaining steam but I dont a thing about him or heard him speak, I know hes gay and married to another guy. First Wife or First Husband or how does that work.?
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 10:44 AM
just what kind of plan is there to save this planet?
First, shoot all the Rodents.
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 10:47 AM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
Making cattle extinct is your first priority?
Have YOU bought a bicycle and given up ALL fossil fuel use yet, including the second hand use derived from purchases at the grocery store?
Why not?
How much of your own money are you willing to waste in support of those unwilling to work?
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 10:49 AM
And, since socialism has murdered over 200 million people in the last century, can some explain why we should be waging war against it?
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 10:53 AM
Wow, you said a lot, but I'm only going to address Buttigieg right now. It's to his favor that he opposed the Green New Deal, as many other democrats do, because it's unworkable and nothing more than a sideshow for AOC. I agree with you on his SCOTUS idea, that's not great -- but one thing about him you didn't mention, yet I picked up on immediately, is his tendency to play the "religion" card, which is a little odd for a democrat. He's fond of saying someone must not be a Christian if they don't interpret scripture the way he interprets it.
I think he could be dangerous.
In many aspects the Pinko New Deal is EXACTLY what the Rodents plan for our future.
Their slaves do not have to eat meat. That is for the aristocracy. Just look at history.
Their slaves do not need transportation, they should never have a reason to leave the plantstions. So there's no need for most cars or air travel for them.
As for taking care of people unwilling to work, fascists know how to do just that. Dachu was a work camo, after all.
AZ Jim
04-08-2019, 01:54 PM
First, shoot all the Rodents.Grow the fuck up!!!!!
Tahuyaman
04-08-2019, 03:15 PM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
The green new deal is a disaster in waiting.
Peter1469
04-08-2019, 04:33 PM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
It is impossible to implement even if you ignored the cost. It also is a good example of the broken window fallacy if it is used as an example of helping the economy.
Peter1469
04-08-2019, 04:36 PM
Wow, you said a lot, but I'm only going to address Buttigieg right now. It's to his favor that he opposed the Green New Deal, as many other democrats do, because it's unworkable and nothing more than a sideshow for AOC. I agree with you on his SCOTUS idea, that's not great -- but one thing about him you didn't mention, yet I picked up on immediately, is his tendency to play the "religion" card, which is a little odd for a democrat. He's fond of saying someone must not be a Christian if they don't interpret scripture the way he interprets it.
I think he could be dangerous.
It is said he isn't gay enough (by the dems) so he won't get far.
Peter1469
04-08-2019, 04:37 PM
Making cattle extinct is your first priority?
Have YOU bought a bicycle and given up ALL fossil fuel use yet, including the second hand use derived from purchases at the grocery store?
Why not?
How much of your own money are you willing to waste in support of those unwilling to work?
That have those mountain bikes with the fat snow tires. So Vermont Polly is set.
MisterVeritis
04-08-2019, 04:38 PM
Grow the fuck up!!!!!
Should we trap rodents instead?
donttread
04-08-2019, 05:53 PM
And, since socialism has murdered over 200 million people in the last century, can some explain why we should be waging war against it?
Certainly a reason to be wary, but all systems have murdered, plundered, destroyed. Sometimes justified by the words "war" or "conflict" or "action" but dead is dead . and civilians have been made dead by the west . Not 200,000,000.00 but plenty .
Hiroshima , Dresden, Afghani and Pakistani villages, Randy weaver's wife, lots of folks in Iraq, etc.
All systems have murdered from Feudal, to Dictatorships to Fascism to Nazi to Socialism to Communism to tribal and yes even Capitalism. We must be on guard at all times as the founders warned us. When power is in play murder and death will not be far away.
Besides you cannot wage war on an ideology or drugs or poverty. I think that has been made clear by now.
donttread
04-08-2019, 05:58 PM
Yes, that's obviously a hyperbolic title, not something I mean literally. But the essential thing I'm getting at is that I'm already depressed by and tired of this election even though it's still more than a year and a half away.
The year, and the campaign, started out fine enough, launching effectively in January with the first candidate announcements taking place amidst the backdrop of the record-length government shutdown over the border wall. The early candidates were mostly women and mostly progressive in their political leanings. I was actually kind of excited. I hadn't seen so many women or progressives run for the same party's nomination before! I fairly quickly decided on Elizabeth Warren as my overall preference, but would've still been fine with candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, or Bernie Sanders. Indeed, at first it seemed like Harris and Booker actually formed the new "moderate" wing of the candidates in general, with more traditional, neoliberal Hillary Clinton-like forces being weaker candidates this time around, like mayors and Representatives of individual districts rather than Senators or Governors. All of the named candidates I just mentioned were running on the Green New Deal and Medicare for all and other progressive ideas that varied by candidate, ranging from tuition-free college to abolishing ICE to slavery reparations. Then came Trump's war on socialism (so-called) and epic mistakes like the failure of the Democrats to denounce anti-Semitism in their own party in the same unqualified way they had successfully demanded the Republicans do vis-a-vis the white racism of Steve King. Billionaires ranging from Howard Schults to Mark Cuban began threatening to run as independents and major neoliberal Democrats appeared either in or in proximity to the presidential race ranging from Senator Amy Klobuchar to Joe Biden.
More recently, the DCCC has enacted a new policy barring party funds for any polling or consulting firm that works for a primary challenger to an incumbent Democrat. The goal is to prevent any repetition of the campaigns by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, who defeated more conservative incumbent Democrats in safe Democratic seats in New York City and Boston and both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former president Barack Obama have openly denounced proposals like Medicare for all and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party leadership and influencers are putting their thumbs on the scale for prospective candidates like Joe Biden and other 'acceptable' white, male, pro-corporate Democrats.
To be honest folks, I'm not really quite as worried about Joe Biden as many on the left are. I think there's a good possibility he will be the Democratic nominee, but I also think there's emerged a good possibility that the nominee will instead be a more 'Obama-like' candidate like Beto O'Rourke or Peter Buttigieg, who you've probably noticed have generated a great deal of excitement (and, crucially, fundraising) of late. As we saw recently, Beto O'Rourke actually leads the fundraising pack, ahead of Bernie Sanders, while Pete Buttigieg is surging in both the polls, Google searches, and fundraising all. Watch for that around Buttigieg to increase further once he formally announces on the 14th of this month (April 2019).
Anyway, Biden is a weaker candidate that you may think. He may be touted as this genteel old guy who 'knows how to talk to the Midwestern old white men who voted for Obama and then Trump', but the fact is that, once you set aside his rhetorical style, you realize that he has a long political resume that contains all the same problems that Hillary Clinton had, plus some of his own, and that this record just simply won't appeal to younger voters in a way that drives them to the polls on election day. Biden voted for the crime bill, for the Iraq War, for the now-infamous bankruptcy bills of the 2000s and for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, refers to himself as "pro-life" on abortion, still won't recant his now-well-known opposition to busing in the 1970s or his "intimate" style of campaigning. And then there is the way he treated Anita Hill, which is by itself disqualifying for me. That is a record that younger voters and feminists are unlikely to be excited by. That's an awful lot of baggage that frankly he'll likely spend his whole campaign re-litigating. Pundits and party leaders often mistakenly believe that having a Washington resume that won't quit is some kind of electoral advantage. It's not. Consider that the last three Democratic presidents we've had -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama -- while not progressive leftists like Bernie Sanders, were nonetheless known for their comparatively short political resumes and typically youthfulness as well. Consider conversely the fate of Democratic nominees who had lengthy governing resumes going in, like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. How did that work out? The fact is that while progressives don't have enough appeal to win over the average Democratic voter, the younger candidates in this race, like Beto O'Rourke and even Peter Buttigieg maybe, who are running as typical, Joe Biden-like neoliberals but with youth and vigor (YaY!), are factually best-positioned to actually defeat Trump because, unlike Biden, they can get not just the support of older, whiter, wealthier voters, but also of younger voters and people of color. I think those younger candidates have a solid case to make that they're the most "electable" in reality.
So what's my problem, you ask? My problem is that I don't like these emerging non-progressive 'youth candidates' either. I know that I wrote a glowing commentary on Beto O'Rourke's nearly victorious Senate bid in Texas last year, but that was a different candidate. That was a Beto who was running on Medicare for all and impeaching Trump and other clear-cut progressive stances that have since been abandoned. It has become clear to me that the Beto of last year was a farce from the beginning and that the real Beto is the one who's political career began with hawking one of his father's urban gentrification projects. In other words, he's basically the Justin Trudeau of America. I don't think I much care for him. But it certainly feels like my generation (and the younger one) writ large feels differently and that I find to be discouraging. In that sense, his candidacy makes this contest feel like 2008 again for me, wherein I felt isolated from my generation's enthusiasm for then-candidate Obama for similar reasons.
Beto's not my greatest concern though. Peter Buttigieg is. Buttigieg is, in my personal opinion, the worst Democratic candidate running. Certainly my least favorite. By that I mean that I'm not even sure I like him better than Trump. I definitely would never vote for him. There are so many things I dislike about him that it's nearly impossible to list them all, but let's just summarize it all by saying that he is the stereotypical entitled millennial SJW in this race. He's a 37-year-old mayor who governs a city of 102,000 people and feels himself qualified to be president, nay owed the White House by virtue of his historically young age alone (he would be the youngest president we've ever elected). He was the first candidate to volunteer, without being asked, his support for the Equality Act: an extraordinarily misogynistic policy advocated mainly by the transgender movement (currently H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives, in case you're wondering) that would outlaw single-sex public spaces in this country and prohibit most speech critical of transgender politics (https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbian-feminist-slams-the-equality-act-h-r-5-is-a-human-rights-violation/), among other things, and is kind of the bane of my existence right now! Other Democrats unfortunately support the Equality Act (which I support in principle, but not in its current form; the protections for gender identity definitely need to be changed to protect gender expression instead to avoid the aforementioned problems), but none prioritize it like Buttigieg does. He is portrayed as being so so SO in the loop because of his age, and yet has only recently learned what Black Lives Matter is! (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710080667/pete-buttigieg-explains-his-agenda-for-black-voters) Maybe knowing the ins and outs of the technology industry isn't actually the same thing as knowing what's going on in the country on the ground! Oh of course he's against the Green New Deal and in favor of instead a carbon emissions tax that would mainly fall on working people, being as he seems to have learned absolutely nothing from either the Sunrise movement OR the yellow vests! But the icing on the cake really is his call to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 15 so that he can unilaterally appoint 6 more to his liking, swaying the political balance of the court. THAT position in particular is the perfect concentration of the arrogance of this particular candidate and of the strikingly authoritarian tendencies that that sheer, unbridled arrogance yields. This position in particular worries me a lot in that it seems to signal a distinctive and particularly frightening recklessless. I think we need to move away from the kind of authoritarianism that this administration represents, personally.
Anyway, the fact that candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and even Bernie Sanders are fading in the polls and these "young, inspiring, positive" pro-corporate candidates are surging in both the polls and in the fundraising at their expense signals that this nominating contest is headed in a direction that I don't care for. If the Democrats nominate Biden, Trump will probably be re-elected. If they nonimate O'Rourke or, worse, Buttigieg, I feel that Trump may not be re-elected, but wonder how much better what we'll get will actually be. Believe it or not, I'm not interested in a handsome-yet-substance-free Justin Trudeau of America. And I'm not an ageist stereotype of my generation either. I'm a working woman with real needs who wants a candidate that Wall Street hates (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70percent-of-wall-street-thinks-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020.html). I like the 69-year-old woman calling for the breakup of the tech giants and the factory farms that ran my family out of business and is serious about saving the planet. I guess that's just not very cool right now. It's too bad.
I\m a localist so I like your few sentences . The megacorps are out of control and as the factory farms took over the quality of food went downhill.
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 06:06 PM
Certainly a reason to be wary, but all systems have murdered, plundered, destroyed. Sometimes justified by the words "war" or "conflict" or "action" but dead is dead . and civilians have been made dead by the west . Not 200,000,000.00 but plenty .
Hiroshima , Dresden, Afghani and Pakistani villages, Randy weaver's wife, lots of folks in Iraq, etc.
All systems have murdered from Feudal, to Dictatorships to Fascism to Nazi to Socialism to Communism to tribal and yes even Capitalism. We must be on guard at all times as the founders warned us. When power is in play murder and death will not be far away.
Besides you cannot wage war on an ideology or drugs or poverty. I think that has been made clear by now.
Fascism IS socialism.
Communism IS socialism.
Liberalism IS fascism, which IS socialism.
Of course you can wage war on an ideology. All you need is rope and bullets. It's amazing how quickly people stop promoting their ideology once they are dead.
The 200,000,000 number is easily arrived at when the 120,000,000 dead from preventable malaria is counted, since socialism continues to ban the use of DDT in places where three million POX dies yearly of the disease.
150,000,000 have died from the socialist practice of giving the HIV virus civil rights, including privacy.
Easily 1,000,000,000 people have been murdered through the socialist practice of abortion and infanticide.
The various megadeayhs from damines in Africa were not caused by the weather. They were caused by socialist regimes taking advantage of the weather to destroy recalcitrant populations.
But....
...20,000,000 dead in Germany ' s share of WWII.
40,000,000 dead by Stalin ' s hand.
50,000,000 dead by Hillary's favorite philosopher, Mao see dung.
3,000,000 dead by infamous socialist Pol pot.
Etc,etc,etc. In straight and direct murder alone the socialists racked up approximately 180 megadeaths. Then there were the deliberate incidents like those I sample above.
donttread
04-08-2019, 06:22 PM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
How can you ditch cows and airplanes at the same time? To lower fossil fuel use significantly local economies can be a piece of the solution. However , it's hard to imagine a strong, localized rural economy without cows. But shipping those crops and beef and milk a few miles instead of hundreds to thousands of miles . Now that could make a difference and allow people to make a living and be done without forcing our values on the rest of the world.
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 06:35 PM
Fascism IS socialism.
Communism IS socialism.
Liberalism IS fascism, which IS socialism.
Of course you can wage war on an ideology. All you need is rope and bullets. It's amazing how quickly people stop promoting their ideology once they are dead.
The 200,000,000 number is easily arrived at when the 120,000,000 dead from preventable malaria is counted, since socialism continues to ban the use of DDT in places where three million POX dies yearly of the disease.
150,000,000 have died from the socialist practice of giving the HIV virus civil rights, including privacy.
Easily 1,000,000,000 people have been murdered through the socialist practice of abortion and infanticide.
The various megadeayhs from damines in Africa were not caused by the weather. They were caused by socialist regimes taking advantage of the weather to destroy recalcitrant populations.
But....
...20,000,000 dead in Germany ' s share of WWII.
40,000,000 dead by Stalin ' s hand.
50,000,000 dead by Hillary's favorite philosopher, Mao see dung.
3,000,000 dead by infamous socialist Pol pot.
Etc,etc,etc. In straight and direct murder alone the socialists racked up approximately 180 megadeaths. Then there were the deliberate incidents like those I sample above.
For another exple, how many people starved or were severely harmed when that pig GW Bush started paying farmers to turn the food they grew into ethanol.
Sergeant Gleed
04-08-2019, 06:36 PM
How can you ditch cows and airplanes at the same time? To lower fossil fuel use significantly local economies can be a piece of the solution. However , it's hard to imagine a strong, localized rural economy without cows. But shipping those crops and beef and milk a few miles instead of hundreds to thousands of miles . Now that could make a difference and allow people to make a living and be done without forcing our values on the rest of the world.
The better question is how are fields plowed without tractors or oxen.
Ransom
04-08-2019, 06:55 PM
After that entire thread start that is a foot long, the author is pulling for the two cute Dudes. Men who look good on tv. Got it.
Image driven voter.
FindersKeepers
04-09-2019, 03:29 AM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
It may be popular with people who don't have a clue as to why it's a disaster -- stick a fluffy name on anything and you'll find followers. the vast majority of people don't understand what it would take to make the deal happen -- they just like the name and they think they're being "green" when they say they like the bill.
Once we started seeing high numbers of people die because they couldn't afford to heat or cool their homes anymore (and the rates are skyrocketing in states where wind has been implemented) opinions will quickly change. Power is something everyone needs, but Kansas biggest power conglomerate (Westar) has raised electric rates 57 times in the past few years, and hearings have determined the biggest reason is implementation of wind farms. Hugely expensive - very little return.
If the Green New Deal supported nuclear, it might make some sense. As it is -- not even close. It's unworkable and people are going to die.
Peter1469
04-09-2019, 04:22 AM
It may be popular with people who don't have a clue as to why it's a disaster -- stick a fluffy name on anything and you'll find followers. the vast majority of people don't understand what it would take to make the deal happen -- they just like the name and they think they're being "green" when they say they like the bill.
Once we started seeing high numbers of people die because they couldn't afford to heat or cool their homes anymore (and the rates are skyrocketing in states where wind has been implemented) opinions will quickly change. Power is something everyone needs, but Kansas biggest power conglomerate (Westar) has raised electric rates 57 times in the past few years, and hearings have determined the biggest reason is implementation of wind farms. Hugely expensive - very little return.
If the Green New Deal supported nuclear, it might make some sense. As it is -- not even close. It's unworkable and people are going to die.
Supporting nuclear would only solve one of the many problems with the GND. Essentally every house, town, and city, would need to be torn down and rebuilt. Impossible on several levels.
IMPress Polly
04-09-2019, 06:09 AM
I agree with you on his SCOTUS idea, that's not great -- but one thing about him you didn't mention, yet I picked up on immediately, is his tendency to play the "religion" card, which is a little odd for a democrat. He's fond of saying someone must not be a Christian if they don't interpret scripture the way he interprets it.
*chuckles* Yeah, I've noticed that too. I think the cause of that is fairly obvious: he's from the same state as Vice President Mike Pence and is accordingly playing on Pence's image as a fairly extreme Christian fundamentalist. (For example, Pence's brand of Christianity has it that people like Buttigieg are destined for hell because gay. Obviously Buttigieg subscribes to a different reading.) Many Democratic-leaning voters like the idea of nominating someone from the same state as the vice president, if only for the irony of it. But seriously, while I find the weaponization of the Bible in the political arena slightly annoying on principle as a non-believer, the Pete Buttigieg gay Christian theocracy isn't something I can personally imagine. :tongue: That's not a fear of mine. He's obviously just responding to Mike Pence's views in that regard.
It may be popular with people who don't have a clue as to why it's a disaster -- stick a fluffy name on anything and you'll find followers. the vast majority of people don't understand what it would take to make the deal happen -- they just like the name and they think they're being "green" when they say they like the bill.
Once we started seeing high numbers of people die because they couldn't afford to heat or cool their homes anymore (and the rates are skyrocketing in states where wind has been implemented) opinions will quickly change. Power is something everyone needs, but Kansas biggest power conglomerate (Westar) has raised electric rates 57 times in the past few years, and hearings have determined the biggest reason is implementation of wind farms. Hugely expensive - very little return.
If the Green New Deal supported nuclear, it might make some sense. As it is -- not even close. It's unworkable and people are going to die.
Whaaaaa? Nobody is going to die! You watch too much Hannity.
Just to clarify things:
-No one's going to die.
-Cows won't go extinct.
-It's a 30-year program, not 10 years.
-World War II-scale mobilization of the public definitely won't result in a net loss of jobs.
-The cost of clean energy will go down, not up, as a result of active subsidization.
Just stop watching Hannity, in other words. He's a liar.
IMPress Polly
04-09-2019, 06:19 AM
Bernies Sanders leads the entire field in fundraising not Beto Orourke Senator Bernie Sanders Leads 2020 Presidential Campaign Fundraising http://time.com/5563406/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
I guess we're gauging by different measures. Here's what I'm looking at (https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-fundraising-candidates-beto-bernie-1385481):
Beto Average: $520,000 per day
Bernie Average: $444,000 per day
IMPress Polly
04-09-2019, 06:22 AM
It is said he isn't gay enough...
Yeah, I've heard that line before and don't even know what that means. I suspect that argument will last about as long as the initial contention of some back in 2008 that Barack Obama wasn't "black enough", whatever that meant.
That have those mountain bikes with the fat snow tires. So Vermont Polly is set.
That's the best dorky Trumpian nickname you could come up with for me? :laugh: I love my state! :smiley:
Hoosier8
04-09-2019, 06:43 AM
I am excited to watch the democrat clown show. Swalwell, Schiff for brains lap dog has just entered.
It is going to be fun to watch them tear each other apart.
Also, the more progressive the candidate, the less chance they have of becoming President.
Chris
04-09-2019, 07:38 AM
*chuckles* Yeah, I've noticed that too. I think the cause of that is fairly obvious: he's from the same state as Vice President Mike Pence and is accordingly playing on Pence's image as a fairly extreme Christian fundamentalist. (For example, Pence's brand of Christianity has it that people like Buttigieg are destined for hell because gay. Obviously Buttigieg subscribes to a different reading.) Many Democratic-leaning voters like the idea of nominating someone from the same state as the vice president, if only for the irony of it. But seriously, while I find the weaponization of the Bible in the political arena slightly annoying on principle as a non-believer, the Pete Buttigieg gay Christian theocracy isn't something I can personally imagine. :tongue: That's not a fear of mine. He's obviously just responding to Mike Pence's views in that regard.
Whaaaaa? Nobody is going to die! You watch too much Hannity.
Just to clarify things:
-No one's going to die.
-Cows won't go extinct.
-It's a 30-year program, not 10 years.
-World War II-scale mobilization of the public definitely won't result in a net loss of jobs.
-The cost of clean energy will go down, not up, as a result of active subsidization.
Just stop watching Hannity, in other words. He's a liar.
Then you're not listening to AOC. She does say people will die, wants to eliminate cows, refers not to WWII for FDR's New Deal, and imagines costs will go down. (subsidization is an expense on taxpayers).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfno86h964
FindersKeepers
04-09-2019, 07:56 AM
Supporting nuclear would only solve one of the many problems with the GND. Essentally every house, town, and city, would need to be torn down and rebuilt. Impossible on several levels.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Nuclear is a clean way of producing electricity -- and - it's very dependable. Currently, about 20% of the United State's electricity is produced by nuclear.
We can easily produce 100% nuclear, keep our environment clean, and have inexpensive electricity.
FindersKeepers
04-09-2019, 08:11 AM
Whaaaaa? Nobody is going to die! You watch too much Hannity.
Do you realize what happened in Illinois when the last polar vortex came through? All the wind turbines shut down. The only power they had during that time was from coal-fired plants. Wind is NOT reliable.
I've never watched Hannity.
Just to clarify things:
-No one's going to die.
Actually, every single one of us will die. Not being able to afford to heat and cool homes will speed the process along for the elderly and the infirm.
-Cows won't go extinct.
Who thought they would?
-It's a 30-year program, not 10 years.
The original timeline cited 2030, just 11 years from now. The timeline was altered when the silliness of that became apparent. Thinking individuals, including most democratic lawmakers have already dismissed the entire thing as a pipe dream. And, it is.
-World War II-scale mobilization of the public definitely won't result in a net loss of jobs.
Not sure what you mean by this.
-The cost of clean energy will go down, not up, as a result of active subsidization.
I hope you realize that "subsidization" means you're still paying. The PTC subsidies expire at the end of this year. Even though they've been heavily subsidized, the prices continue to climb. We need real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky dreams.
Just stop watching Hannity, in other words. He's a liar.
Obviously, you watch him if you know he's a liar, but, again -- I don't.
I do tend to listen to what Bill Gates says however. You might want to try it, yourself. Or, you could continue thinking renewables are spiffy. Your choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x443Ei7AkBk
Orion Rules
04-09-2019, 09:22 AM
Nickola Tesla said that energy was "free":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKjIm9dbHLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mOV26A3AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV7-keRFq8
From the creator of the above video, he wrote:
Who Does What TV
Well the latest release of information is listed above with a link in our last comment. Not only Zenneck power, but '''''' Fusion'''' is just around the corner according to one speaker, plus this battery replacement thing that lasts almost forever. Exciting times, very exciting times. If they crack that, then for sure it will be miniaturized and probably bottled or whatever. Each household having their own tiny 'FUSION GENERATOR', safe and endless. Just a thought dear gang. Sadly, I wont be around. For me the Electric bill each month gives me a heart attack. Can I crowd fund my cardiac treatment? :)
BUT....to get back to the thread here; Nothing is FREE on this earth. Even Coca Cola will probably design a weird shaped bottle and bottle air, claiming it to be 'fresh', adding a little teat device instead of cap (like they do), then charge us, accompanied by a multi-million Dollar promotional campaign (which has to be paid for) telling us all that we need this.
Some of us will remember that one of the BIG ONES tried it with water a few years back until they got rumbled. Taking stream water from one of the counties on the Dutch side of the UK, bottling it and blagging exotic prices for it. It was just guys like you who figured it out and stopped them. The big conglomerates and corporates will never tell you.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:14 PM
The Green New Deal is a good start, which, incidentally, I really, really don't feel is actually as unpopular or politically deadly to embrace as is often portrayed (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal).
Where are we to get the 100 trilion dollars.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:15 PM
The Green New Deal is a joke, Polly.
So is the idiot who brought it up.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:18 PM
Certainly a reason to be wary, but all systems have murdered, plundered, destroyed. Sometimes justified by the words "war" or "conflict" or "action" but dead is dead . and civilians have been made dead by the west . Not 200,000,000.00 but plenty .
Hiroshima , Dresden, Afghani and Pakistani villages, Randy weaver's wife, lots of folks in Iraq, etc.
All systems have murdered from Feudal, to Dictatorships to Fascism to Nazi to Socialism to Communism to tribal and yes even Capitalism. We must be on guard at all times as the founders warned us. When power is in play murder and death will not be far away.
Besides you cannot wage war on an ideology or drugs or poverty. I think that has been made clear by now.
Governments murder people to serve a purpose. It isn't an ideology.
Tahuyaman
04-09-2019, 02:20 PM
I guess we're gauging by different measures. Here's what I'm looking at (https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-fundraising-candidates-beto-bernie-1385481):
Beto Average: $520,000 per day
Bernie Average: $444,000 per day
Clinton outspent Trump by a huge margin. It didn't work for her.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:20 PM
How can you ditch cows and airplanes at the same time? To lower fossil fuel use significantly local economies can be a piece of the solution. However , it's hard to imagine a strong, localized rural economy without cows. But shipping those crops and beef and milk a few miles instead of hundreds to thousands of miles . Now that could make a difference and allow people to make a living and be done without forcing our values on the rest of the world.
The New Green Deal is the most absurd thing I've heard of. Only a fool would think it would work. It's just like spitting into the wind. Don't do it.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:21 PM
For another exple, how many people starved or were severely harmed when that pig GW Bush started paying farmers to turn the food they grew into ethanol.
None.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:23 PM
*chuckles* Yeah, I've noticed that too. I think the cause of that is fairly obvious: he's from the same state as Vice President Mike Pence and is accordingly playing on Pence's image as a fairly extreme Christian fundamentalist. (For example, Pence's brand of Christianity has it that people like Buttigieg are destined for hell because gay. Obviously Buttigieg subscribes to a different reading.) Many Democratic-leaning voters like the idea of nominating someone from the same state as the vice president, if only for the irony of it. But seriously, while I find the weaponization of the Bible in the political arena slightly annoying on principle as a non-believer, the Pete Buttigieg gay Christian theocracy isn't something I can personally imagine. :tongue: That's not a fear of mine. He's obviously just responding to Mike Pence's views in that regard.
Whaaaaa? Nobody is going to die! You watch too much Hannity.
Just to clarify things:
-No one's going to die.
-Cows won't go extinct.
-It's a 30-year program, not 10 years.
-World War II-scale mobilization of the public definitely won't result in a net loss of jobs.
-The cost of clean energy will go down, not up, as a result of active subsidization.
Just stop watching Hannity, in other words. He's a liar.
You're foolish.
Captdon
04-09-2019, 02:25 PM
Then you're not listening to AOC. She does say people will die, wants to eliminate cows, refers not to WWII for FDR's New Deal, and imagines costs will go down. (subsidization is an expense on taxpayers).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfno86h964
Polly likes the NGD except what's in it.
Tahuyaman
04-09-2019, 02:26 PM
I am excited to watch the democrat clown show. Swalwell, Schiff for brains lap dog has just entered...
Yes! Swalwell will be my favorite candidate. He'll provide the most comedic relief. I heard him say the other day that everything in the Steele dossier has been proven to be 100% accurate.
If he wins the nomination, I would expect him to break out in tears in a debate with Trump. I don't expect him to get too far though.
This guy makes Cory Booker look smart.
donttread
04-09-2019, 04:31 PM
Fascism IS socialism.
Communism IS socialism.
Liberalism IS fascism, which IS socialism.
Of course you can wage war on an ideology. All you need is rope and bullets. It's amazing how quickly people stop promoting their ideology once they are dead.
The 200,000,000 number is easily arrived at when the 120,000,000 dead from preventable malaria is counted, since socialism continues to ban the use of DDT in places where three million POX dies yearly of the disease.
150,000,000 have died from the socialist practice of giving the HIV virus civil rights, including privacy.
Easily 1,000,000,000 people have been murdered through the socialist practice of abortion and infanticide.
The various megadeayhs from damines in Africa were not caused by the weather. They were caused by socialist regimes taking advantage of the weather to destroy recalcitrant populations.
But....
...20,000,000 dead in Germany ' s share of WWII.
40,000,000 dead by Stalin ' s hand.
50,000,000 dead by Hillary's favorite philosopher, Mao see dung.
3,000,000 dead by infamous socialist Pol pot.
Etc,etc,etc. In straight and direct murder alone the socialists racked up approximately 180 megadeaths. Then there were the deliberate incidents like those I sample above.
LOL. so all systems that are not yours = socialism? BTW, I didn't question the 200,000,000 figure. BTW were we Capialist inn the time of slavery? No that must of been caused by closet socialist
donttread
04-09-2019, 04:36 PM
The better question is how are fields plowed without tractors or oxen.
Good point. You can work the fields by hand but only enough to produce food for you. Horses? But wait they fart to. BTW, how much methane do 7 billion people produce?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.